We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

﻿Title: Junius Unmasked - or, Thomas Paine the author of the Letters of Junius and - the Declaration of Independence
Author: Moody, Joel
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.
*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Junius Unmasked - or, Thomas Paine the author of the Letters of Junius and - the Declaration of Independence" ***
This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.
public domain works from the University of Michigan Digital
Libraries.)
Transcriber's Notes:
1. Passages in italics are surrounded by _underscores_.
2. Minor punctuation and spelling errors have been corrected. A detailed
list, together with other notations appears at the end of this e-text.
3. A Table of Contents has been added by the transcriber to aid reader
navigation.
4. Footnotes have been moved to Chapter ends and assigned letters instead
of symbols.
5. Direct comparisons of "Common Sense" and the "Letters of Junius,"
presented side by side in the original text, appear as offset
indentation paragraph blocks in this e-text.
6. No page numbers appear in this e-text, however if reference is made
to a page or passage, not otherwise titled, Note 8, Par. 22, etc., a
page number in curly brackets is used to mark the place in the text,
(ex. {71}, {163}).
7. The APPENDIX, published separately, has been included in this e-text.
8. This book was published anonymously, however is attributed to author
JOEL MOODY (1834-1914).
JUNIUS UNMASKED:
THOMAS PAINE
THE AUTHOR OF
THE LETTERS OF JUNIUS,
AND THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
_Non stat diutius nominis umbra._
WASHINGTON, D.C.:
JOHN GRAY & CO., PUBLISHERS.
1872.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by
JOHN GRAY & CO.,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface 5
PART I. JUNIUS UNMASKED
Introduction 7
Method 11
Mystery 13
Statement 17
Letter--To the Printer of the Public Advertiser 19
Comments on the Doctors Notes 38
Estimate of Junius, by Mr. Burke 42
Social Position 44
Junius Not a Partisan 47
A Revolutionist 55
Review of Junius 60
Common Sense 68
Style 93
Mental Characteristics 131
Review 186
PART II.
An Examination of the Declaration of Independence 201
Analysis 227
Argument 229
Style 234
Special Characteristics 242
Grand Outlines of Thomas Paines Life 279
Conclusion 320
APPENDIX 323
PREFACE.
One hundred years ago to-day, Junius wrote as follows:
"The man who fairly and completely answers this argument, shall
have my thanks and my applause.... Grateful as I am to the good
Being whose bounty has imparted to me this reasoning intellect,
whatever it is, I hold myself proportionably indebted to him from
whose enlightened understanding another ray of knowledge
communicates to mine. But neither should I think the most exalted
faculties of the human mind a gift worthy of the Divinity, nor any
assistance in the improvement of them a subject of gratitude to my
fellow-creatures, if I were not satisfied that really to inform
the understanding corrects and enlarges the heart."
These were the concluding words of his last Letter. So say I now, and I
make them the preface to an argument which now sets the great apostle of
liberty right before the world. They serve, like a literary hyphen, to
connect the two ages--his own with this; and the two lives--the masked
with the open one; in both of which ages and lives he did good to
mankind, and that mightily.
WASHINGTON, D.C., _January 21, 1872_.
PART I.
INTRODUCTION.
The literary work which survives a century has uncommon merit. Time has
set the seal of approval upon it. It has passed its probation and
entered the ages. A century has just closed upon the work of Junius. The
causes which produced it, either in act or person, have long since
passed away. The foolish king, the corrupt minister, and the prostituted
legislature are forgotten, or only recalled to be despised; but the work
of Junius, startling in thought, daring in design, bristling with
satire, a consuming fire to those he attacked, remains to be admired for
its principles, and to be studied for its beauty and strength.
The times in which Junius wrote were big with events. The Seven Years'
War had just closed with shining victories to Prussia and England.
Frederic, with an unimpaired nation and a permanent peace, it left with
a good heart and much personal glory; but George III., with India and
America in his hands, with the plunder of a great conquest to distribute
to a greedy and licentious court, it left pious, but simple.
Great wars disturb the masses. They awaken them from the plodding, dull
routine of physical labor, and, thrusting great questions of conquest
and defense, of justice and honor, before them, agitate them into
thought. Conditions change; new ideas take the place of old ones, and a
revolution in thought and action follows. But a war of ideas, starting
from principles of peace, brings the enslaved again to the sword, and
this crisis is termed a revolution.
Junius wrote at the dawn of the age of revolutions. The war of ideas was
waged against priestcraft, and skepticism was the result. Voltaire had
struck fable from history with the pen of criticism, and a scientific
method here dawned upon history. Rousseau's democracy had entered the
hearts of the down-trodden in France, and, a wandering exile, he had
spread the contagion in England. George Berkeley, the Irish idealist,
had just died, and the Scotch Thomas Reid arose with the weapon of
common sense to test the metaphysician's ideas. Common Sense was, in the
strictest sense, revolutionary, and, under the tyranny of king, lords,
and commons, meant war. It was not a phrase without meaning, but a
principle proclaimed, and it passed more readily into the understanding
of the common people because conveyed in common speech. When Reid said,
"I despise philosophy, and renounce its guidance; let my soul dwell in
common sense," he illuminated all Britain and America. The philosophy of
common sense entered the professor's chair, invaded the pulpit, and,
having passed thence into the humblest cottage, soon took a higher
range--it went immediately up and knocked at the king's gate. It would
be false to say it found admittance there. It was only because there
had been a new world opened as an asylum for the oppressed of every
land, that it did not sweep kings and monarchs from all the high places
in Europe.
At this time, too, Mr. Pitt, the great commoner, the friend of common
sense and English liberty, in his old age, war-worn and sick, had
compromised with his vanity for a title. In his great fall from Pitt to
Chatham, from the people to a peerage, he gained nothing but lost his
good name. He exchanged worth for a bauble, and a noble respect for the
contempt of nobles and the sorrows of the people. Mr. Pitt had departed,
Lord Chatham was passing away; and in any assault by a trafficking
ministry and corrupt legislature upon the people's rights, there was no
one left to bend the bow at the gates.
To tax the colonies became the settled plan of king, ministers, and
parliament. The tax was easily imposed, but could not be enforced.
Freedom had long before been driven to America, and, in a line of direct
descent, her blood had been transmitted from mother to son. The true
sons of freedom now stood shoulder to shoulder, and, looking forward to
independence, claimed to have rights as men, which king and lords would
not concede to subjects. The Stamp Act was passed and repealed, and a
Test Act substituted. England refused to compel the colonies to give up
their money without their consent, but menaced them, and consoled
herself with these words: "_The king in parliament hath full power to
bind the colonies in all things whatsoever._" Having surrendered the
fact, she indulged in declamation, and the world laughed at her folly.
Like a fretful and stupid mother demanding a favor of her son grown to
manhood, and, being refused, persists in scolding and shaking the fist
at him, as if he still wore a baby's frock.
At this juncture Junius wrote his LETTERS. The circumstances called him
forth. He was a child of fate. He spoke to the greatest personages,
assaulted the strongest power, and advocated the rights of man before
the highest tribunal then acknowledged on earth. This he could not do
openly, and what he said came as with the power of a hidden god. There
is no evidence that Junius ever revealed himself. "I am the sole
depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me." This he said
and religiously kept. But his was the age which demanded it. He also
said: "Whenever Junius appears, he must encounter a host of enemies."
One hundred years have passed since he said this, but this "host" is
less to be feared now than when he wrote. No one now can injure him, and
there are few who would assault his grave. It is time to unmask Junius,
and though still to be hated, I will reveal the enemy of kings and the
friend of man. The reforms he advocated for England are partly
accomplished, and the principles he taught, if not adopted there, have
been established in America. He left no child to bear his name, but he
was the father of a nation. The unimpaired inheritance was his thoughts
and principles; these he transmitted, not alone to this nation, but to
the world--_for the world was his country_.
METHOD.
In the investigation of a subject so startling and novel, and especially
when it leads to the criticism of a work which has found favor with the
public, and now to be attributed to an author who has been publicly
condemned, it becomes the critic to state clearly the plan of his
argument, what he designs to do, and how he intends to do it. I
therefore ask: Who was Junius? I answer: Thomas Paine. The object of
this book is to prove this, and possibly to demonstrate it. To do this,
I shall follow as closely as possible the order of events, giving
parallels and coincidences in character, conduct, and composition of the
masked and the open life.
I do not fear as to the proof of my proposition, but I shall aim higher,
I shall try to demonstrate by the overwhelming weight of facts. Proof
produces belief, demonstration knowledge. The innocent have been hanged
on the evidence of proof, but a fact is established by demonstration.
Demonstration follows proof, and knowledge follows belief; and ascending
from the individual to mankind, we find the age of reason to succeed the
age of faith. Science dwells in demonstration, and establishes
principles from observed facts. Why may there not be a scientific
criticism? To arrive at this the writer must ascend to that eminence in
feeling where the opposing prejudices of mankind can not reach him; he
must rise above praise or censure, he must dwell alone in the light of
reason, he must be a child of Truth. Vain, however, would it be to
expect to find himself or a public devoid of prejudice. This is
impossible, for prejudice is produced by strong conviction. It is a
feeling which, like a magnet, points as the electric force directs. To
counteract this force is to destroy the magnet. It is those who think
deeply, and have investigated thoroughly, who have an enlightened
prejudice, and those who take upon authority what others tell them, who
have a blind prejudice; but those who neither think nor investigate for
themselves may truly be said to have no prejudice. My object is to
convince the understanding and thereby build up a prejudice in favor of
my proposition, which shall have a foundation of fact and argument, not
to be removed, and to be but little disturbed. The world is my jury,
they shall decide upon the facts. Lord Bacon gave the world a _method_,
this method is also mine: LET FACTS REVEAL THE INWARD TRUTH OF NATURE.
MYSTERY.
There is a scarcity of facts, a painful obscurity connected with that
part of Mr. Paine's life before he removed to America. In fact, history
has given him to the world, as almost beginning life on his arrival at
Philadelphia, near the close of the year 1774. At this time, in the full
stature of manhood, a little less than forty years of age, we find him
without a personal history, without any events in life sufficient to
predicate his after life upon. Can the great life to come rest on
nothing? How came that mighty mind so fully stored with history, so
deeply analytic, so skilled in literature and science, so perfect in the
art of expressing ideas, so highly disciplined and finely equipped,
ready to do battle against kings and ministers and in behalf of human
rights? Whence came that mighty pen, which has often been acknowledged
to have done more for human freedom than the sword of Washington? Why
this dumb silence of history? There comes to us no thought of Mr. Paine
worth recording prior to this time. The proud and imposing
superstructure stands on a basis fit and substantial, but it rises out
of the depths of mystery. And what little we do know of him prior to
this time, aside from the great fact of his birth, is only a series of
minor facts, with great blanks not even capable of being filled up by
the imagination.
When a lad he went to school, but how long he went, or with what
proficiency he studied, nobody knows. At sixteen he went aboard a
privateer, but how long he served, or what made him quit the service,
nobody knows. At twenty-seven he enters the employ of the English
government as an exciseman, but was dismissed in a little over a year,
nobody knows why. He now teaches school in London a year, but nobody
knows with what success, or what were his accomplishments. He now quits
London and letters, and the society of the learned, to return to the
same petty office from which he had been dismissed, and for the trifling
salary of less than fifty pounds a year. This office he now holds eight
years more. Only a solitary ray of light illuminates this long period,
when in the full tide of life. The chronicler renders it insignificant
by a single dash of the pen. It is closed with another dismissal and
dismal mystery. He now forever separates from his wife upon _amicable
terms_, nobody knows why. During their after lives they neither of them
marry, and never speak disrespectfully of each other. He leaves her all
the property, and often sends her money during his after life. This
obscure and twice dismissed English exciseman, it is said, now goes to
talk with Benjamin Franklin, minister at the court of St. James, for
several of the colonies; and, by what means nobody knows, obtains
letters of the highest commendation, as an introduction to America, from
her greatest and most honored citizen. A few months afterward Benjamin
Franklin places in the hands of Mr. Paine important documents, for him
to write a history of the political troubles and a defense of the
colonies. A mighty work, worthy of a greater than Franklin! These facts
stagger credulity. An obscure English exciseman, whose life is yet a
blank, who has never been an author, save perhaps of some fugitive
pamphlet to demand more pay for excise officers, is _introduced_ to
America, and is _solicited_ and _intrusted_ by America's greatest
writer, thinker, patriot, and statesman, to do America's greatest work,
and that work, too, which shall decide forever the fate of a world.
Franklin! by what mysterious gift of divination hast thou found thy man?
Is there no child of America among all the sons of Freedom equal to the
task? Where art thou thyself? But the man Franklin found had no need of
books or his documents. This obscure Englishman had the facts in his
memory, the wrongs in his heart, the logic in his reason, and he thought
for himself. His work was half written before Franklin had furnished him
with the "necessary papers," and as a New Year's gift surprised the
learned doctor with the first pamphlet of COMMON SENSE.
The appearance of this greatest of political works which has blessed a
world, with all the attending circumstances--the obscure life of Paine,
the few wild events connected with it, the unprecedented action of
Franklin, the introduction to the world of a profound thinker and almost
perfect writer in the full ripeness of his intellect, and the beginning
of an unceasing brilliant literary life _at its meridian_, are
mysteries, save in this instance, unknown to history. COMMON SENSE is a
child of mystery. It is the best of this great author's productions. He
himself so considered it, for he directs that his tombstone shall bear
the simple inscription, THOMAS PAINE, AUTHOR OF COMMON SENSE.
That Thomas Paine should have lived an easy, idle life, without any
great effort in thought, study, or composition, for fifteen years
immediately preceding the appearance of COMMON SENSE, is what no writer,
or thinker, or student, or statesman will believe. Great works of genius
do not come in this way, much less profound political writings. Even
inspiration would desert the connection. And that the proud, ambitious,
literary adventurer, who shall dedicate his life to the good of mankind,
who shall wrest the power from priests and the scepter from kings,
should content himself to fill a poor and petty office under a king he
despised, without some nobler object in view, and at that age too when
the mind of man is the most aspiring, and drives to the greatest
activity, is what no one who knows the heart of man, and the secret
springs of action, will believe. But if it can be proven that Thomas
Paine was Junius, then will every blank be filled and every mystery
dispelled.
There is no external evidence, direct in its nature, as to the
authorship of Junius; the evidence is internal. That the secret did not
perish with Junius, no one can gainsay. But that he told it to no one,
we are not at liberty to conclude. Time has sufficiently removed us from
the scene of conflict. We are not bewildered with a multitude of
claimants, with an army of witnesses for and against; nor are we
disturbed by the clamors of the public, and the hearsay evidence of
belligerant. In this universal calm I will bring Junius forth to speak
for himself.
STATEMENT.
The time occupied in writing the LETTERS OF JUNIUS was just three years.
The first one is dated January 21, 1769, and the last one January 21,
1772. They were written for the _Public Advertiser_, a newspaper printed
in London, and were afterward revised and corrected by Junius. The
edition which he corrected "contains all the letters of Junius, Philo
Junius, and of Sir William Draper, and Mr. Horne to Junius, with their
respective dates, and according to the order in which they appeared in
the _Public Advertiser_." There are sixty-nine in all. Of these, Junius
wrote sixty-one; thirty the first year, six the second, and twenty-five
the third year. In these LETTERS Junius frequently defends himself over
the signature of Philo Junius, which he deemed indispensably necessary
in answer to plausible objections. On this point Junius observes: "The
subordinate character is never guilty of the indecorum of praising his
principal. The fraud was innocent, and I always intended to explain it."
These letters were an attack upon the king and ministry, and a defense
of the people, whose original rights had been invaded. If Thomas Paine
wrote them, he was then an exciseman stationed at Lewes, about forty
miles south of London, and was just thirty-five years old when he
completed them.
I will now introduce to the reader Junius himself through his first
letter, which was one of his most finished productions, and contains the
germs of all the rest. I will give also the comments of Chauncey A.
Goodrich, D.D., formerly professor of Rhetoric in Yale College. These
comments are to be found in the doctor's work, entitled _British
Eloquence_. I do this for two reasons: to let the reader see what high
value is placed on Junius by the learned who teach eloquence by example,
and also that he may see the object, method, and style of Junius. I
shall afterward add my own comments on the doctor's notes, setting him
right when in error in matters of _fact_. This will fully open the
question and prepare the reader for my argument.
LETTER
TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.[A]
SIR,--The submission of a free people to the executive authority of
government is no more than a compliance with laws which they themselves
have enacted. While the national honor is firmly maintained abroad, and
while justice is impartially administered at home, the obedience of the
subject will be voluntary, cheerful, and, I might say, almost unlimited.
A generous nation is grateful even for the preservation of its rights,
and willingly extends the respect due to the office of a good prince
into an affection for his person. Loyalty, in the heart and
understanding of an Englishman, is a rational attachment to the guardian
of the laws. Prejudices and passion have sometimes carried it to a
criminal length, and, whatever foreigners may imagine, we know that
Englishmen have erred as much in a mistaken zeal for particular persons
and families, as they ever did in defense of what they thought most dear
and interesting to themselves.
It naturally fills us with resentment to see such a temper insulted and
abused.[B] In reading the history of a free people, whose rights have
been invaded, we are interested in their cause. Our own feelings tell us
how long they ought to have submitted, and at what moment it would have
been treachery to themselves not to have resisted. How much warmer will
be our resentment, if experience should bring the fatal example home to
ourselves!
The situation of this country is alarming enough to rouse the attention
of every man who pretends to a concern for the public welfare.
Appearances justify suspicion; and, when the safety of a nation is at
stake, suspicion is a just ground of inquiry. Let us enter into it with
candor and decency. Respect is due to the station of ministers; and if a
resolution must at last be taken, there is none so likely to be
supported with firmness as that which has been adopted with moderation.
The ruin or prosperity of a state depends so much upon the
administration of its government, that, to be acquainted with the merit
of a ministry, we need only observe the condition of the people. If we
see them obedient to the laws, prosperous in their industry, united at
home, and respected abroad, we may reasonably presume that their affairs
are conducted by men of experience, abilities, and virtue. If, on the
contrary, we see a universal spirit of distrust and dissatisfaction, a
rapid decay of trade, dissensions in all parts of the empire, and a
total loss of respect in the eyes of foreign powers, we may pronounce,
without hesitation, that the government of that country is weak,
distracted, and corrupt. The multitude, in all countries, are patient to
a certain point. Ill usage may rouse their indignation and hurry them
into excesses, _but the original fault is in government_.[C] Perhaps
there never was an instance of a change in the circumstances and temper
of a whole nation, so sudden and extraordinary as that which the
misconduct of ministers has, within these very few years, produced in
Great Britain. When our gracious sovereign ascended the throne, we were
a flourishing and a contented people. If the personal virtues of a king
could have insured the happiness of his subjects, the scene could not
have altered so entirely as it has done. The idea of uniting all
parties, of trying all characters, and distributing the offices of state
by rotation, was gracious and benevolent to an extreme, though it has
not yet produced the many salutary effects which were intended by it. To
say nothing of the wisdom of such plan, it undoubtedly arose from an
unbounded goodness of heart, in which folly had no share. It was not a
capricious partiality to new faces; it was not a natural turn for low
intrigue, nor was it the treacherous amusement of double and triple
negotiations. No, sir; it arose from a continued anxiety in the purest
of all possible hearts for the general welfare.[D] Unfortunately for us,
the event has not been answerable to the design. After a rapid
succession of changes, we are reduced to that change which hardly any
change can mend. Yet there is no extremity of distress which of itself
ought to reduce a great nation to despair. It is not the disorder, but
the physician; it is not a casual concurrence of calamitous
circumstances, it is the pernicious hand of government, which alone can
make a whole people desperate.
Without much political sagacity, or any extraordinary depth of
observation, we need only mark how the principal departments of the
state are bestowed [distributed], and look no farther for the true cause
of every mischief that befalls us.
The finances of a nation, sinking under its debts and expenses, are
committed to a young nobleman already ruined by play.[E] Introduced to
act under the auspices of Lord Chatham, and left at the head of affairs
by that nobleman's retreat, he became a minister by accident; but,
deserting the principles and professions which gave him a moment's
popularity, we see him, from every honorable engagement to the public,
an apostate by design. As for business, the world yet knows nothing of
his talents or resolution, unless a wavering, wayward inconsistency be a
mark of genius, and caprice a demonstration of spirit. It may be said,
perhaps, that it is his Grace's province, as surely as it is his
passion, rather to distribute than to save the public money, and that
while Lord North is Chancellor of the Exchequer, the first Lord of the
Treasury may be as thoughtless and extravagant as he pleases. I hope,
however, he will not rely too much on the fertility of Lord North's
genius for finance. His Lordship is yet to give us the first proof of
his abilities.
It may be candid to suppose that he has hitherto voluntarily concealed
his talents; intending, perhaps, to astonish the world, when we least
expect it, with a knowledge of trade, a choice of expedients, and a
depth of resources equal to the necessities, and far beyond the hopes of
his country. He must now exert the whole power of his capacity, if he
would wish us to forget that, since he has been in office, no plan has
been formed, no system adhered to, nor any one important measure adopted
for the relief of public credit. If his plan for the service of the
current year be not irrevocably fixed on, let me warn him to think
seriously of consequences before he ventures to increase the public
debt. Outraged and oppressed as we are, this nation will not bear, after
a six years' peace, to see new millions borrowed, without any eventual
diminution of debt or reduction of interest. The attempt might rouse a
spirit of resentment, which might reach beyond the sacrifice of a
minister. As to the debt upon the civil list, the people of England
expect that it will not be paid without a strict inquiry how it was
incurred.[F] If it must be paid by Parliament, let me advise the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to think of some better expedient than a
lottery. To support an expensive war, or in circumstances of absolute
necessity, a lottery may perhaps be allowable; but, besides that it is
at all times the very worst way of raising money upon the people, I
think it ill becomes the royal dignity to have the debts of a prince
provided for, like the repairs of a country bridge or a decayed
hospital. The management of the king's affairs in the House of Commons
can not be more disgraced than it has been. A leading minister
repeatedly called down for absolute ignorance--ridiculous motions
ridiculously withdrawn--deliberate plans disconcerted, and a week's
preparation of graceful oratory lost in a moment, give us some, though
not an adequate idea of Lord North's parliamentary abilities and
influence.[G] Yet, before he had the misfortune of being Chancellor of
the Exchequer, he was neither an object of derision to his enemies, nor
of melancholy pity to his friends.
A series of inconsistent measures has alienated the colonies from their
duty as subjects and from their natural affection to their common
country. When Mr. Grenville was placed at the head of the treasury, he
felt the impossibility of Great Britain's supporting such an
establishment as her former successes had made indispensable, and, at
the same time, of giving any sensible relief to foreign trade and to the
weight of the public debt. He thought it equitable that those parts of
the empire which had benefited most by the expenses of the war, should
contribute something to the expenses of the peace, and he had no doubt
of the constitutional right vested in Parliament to raise the
contribution. But, unfortunately for this country, Mr. Grenville was at
any rate to be distressed because he was minister, and Mr. Pitt and Lord
Camden were to be patrons of America, because they were in opposition.
Their declaration gave spirit and argument to the colonies; and while,
perhaps, they meant no more than the ruin of a minister, they in effect
divided one-half of the empire from the other.[H]
Under one administration the Stamp Act is made, under the second it is
repealed, under the third, in spite of all experience, a new mode of
taxing the colonies is invented, and a question revived, which ought to
have been buried in oblivion. In these circumstances, a new office is
established for the business of the Plantations, and the Earl of
Hillsborough called forth, at a most critical season, to govern America.
The choice at least announced to us a man of superior capacity and
knowledge. Whether he be so or not, let his dispatches as far as they
have appeared, let his measures as far as they have operated, determine
for him. In the former we have seen strong assertions without proof,
declamation without argument, and violent censures without dignity or
moderation, but neither correctness in the composition, nor judgment in
the design. As for his measures, let it be remembered that he was called
upon to conciliate and unite, and that, when he entered into office, the
most refractory of the colonies were still disposed to proceed by the
constitutional methods of petition and remonstrance. Since that period
they have been driven into excesses little short of rebellion. Petitions
have been hindered from reaching the throne, and the continuance of one
of the principal assemblies put upon an arbitrary condition, which,
considering the temper they were in, it was impossible they should
comply with, and which would have availed nothing as to the general
question if it had been complied with.[I] So violent, and I believe I
may call it so unconstitutional an exertion of the prerogative, to say
nothing of the weak, injudicious terms in which it was conveyed, gives
us as humble an opinion of his Lordship's capacity as it does of his
temper and moderation. While we are at peace with other nations, our
military force may perhaps be spared to support the Earl of
Hillsborough's measures in America. Whenever that force shall be
necessarily withdrawn or diminished, the dismission of such a minister
will neither console us for his imprudence, nor remove the settled
resentment of a people, who, complaining of an act of the legislature,
are outraged by an unwarrantable stretch of prerogative, and, supporting
their claims by argument, are insulted with declamation.
Drawing lots would be a prudent and reasonable method of appointing the
officers of state, compared to a late disposition of the secretary's
office. Lord Rochford was acquainted with the affairs and temper of the
Southern courts; Lord Weymouth was equally qualified for either
department. By what unaccountable caprice has it happened, that the
latter, who pretends to no experience whatsoever, is removed to the most
important of the two departments, and the former, by preference, placed
in an office where his experience can be of no use to him?[J] Lord
Weymouth had distinguished himself in his first employment by a
spirited, if not judicious conduct. He had animated the civil magistrate
beyond the tone of civil authority, and had directed the operations of
the army to more than military execution. Recovered from the errors of
his youth, from the distraction of play, and the bewitching smiles of
Burgundy, behold him exerting the whole strength of his clear, unclouded
faculties in the service of the crown. It was not the heat of midnight
excesses, nor ignorance of the laws, nor the furious spirit of the house
of Bedford; no, sir; when this respectable minister interposed his
authority between the magistrate and the people, and signed the mandate
on which, for aught he knew, the lives of thousands depended, he did it
from the deliberate motion of his heart, supported by the best of his
judgment.[K]
It has lately been a fashion to pay a compliment to the bravery and
generosity of the Commander-in-chief [the Marquess of Granby] at the
expense of his understanding. They who love him least make no question
of his courage, while his friends dwell chiefly on the facility of his
disposition. Admitting him to be as brave as a total absence of all
feeling and reflection can make him, let us see what sort of merit he
derives from the remainder of his character. If it be generosity to
accumulate in his own person and family a number of lucrative
employments; to provide, at the public expense, for every creature that
bears the name of Manners; and, neglecting the merit and services of the
rest of the army, to heap promotions upon his favorites and dependents,
the present Commander-in-chief is the most generous man alive. Nature
has been sparing of her gifts to this noble lord; but where birth and
fortune are united, we expect the noble pride and independence of a man
of spirit, not the servile, humiliating complaisance of a courtier. As
to the goodness of his heart, if a proof of it be taken from the
facility of never refusing, what conclusion shall we draw from the
indecency of never performing? And if the discipline of the army be in
any degree preserved, what thanks are due to a man whose cares,
notoriously confined to filling up vacancies, have degraded the office
of Commander-in-chief into [that of] a broker of commissions.[L]
With respect to the navy, I shall only say that this country is so
highly indebted to Sir Edward Hawke, that no expense should be spared to
secure him an honorable and affluent retreat.
The pure and impartial administration of justice is perhaps the firmest
bond to secure a cheerful submission of the people, and to engage their
affections to government. It is not sufficient that questions of private
right or wrong are justly decided, nor that judges are superior to the
vileness of pecuniary corruption. Jeffries himself, when the court had
no interest, was an upright judge. A court of justice may be subject to
another sort of bias, more important and pernicious, as it reaches
beyond the interest of individuals and affects the whole community. A
judge, under the influence of government, may be honest enough in the
decision of private causes, yet a traitor to the public. When a victim
is marked out by the ministry, this judge will offer himself to perform
the sacrifice. He will not scruple to prostitute his dignity, and betray
the sanctity of his office, whenever an arbitrary point is to be carried
for government, or the resentment of a court to be gratified.
These principles and proceedings, odious and contemptible as they are,
in effect are no less injudicious. A wise and generous people are roused
by every appearance of oppressive, unconstitutional measures, whether
those measures are supported openly by the power of government, or
masked under the forms of a court of justice. Prudence and
self-preservation will oblige the most moderate dispositions to make
common cause, even with a man whose conduct they censure, if they see
him persecuted in a way which the real spirit of the laws will not
justify. The facts on which these remarks are founded are too notorious
to require an application.[M]
This, sir, is the detail. In one view, behold a nation overwhelmed with
debt; her revenues wasted; her trade declining; the affections of her
colonies alienated; the duty of the magistrate transferred to the
soldiery; a gallant army, which never fought unwillingly but against
their fellow-subjects, moldering away for want of the direction of a man
of common abilities and spirit; and, in the last instance, the
administration of justice become odious and suspected to the whole body
of the people. This deplorable scene admits of but one addition--that we
are governed by counsels, from which a reasonable man can expect no
remedy but poison, no relief but death. If, by the immediate
interposition of Providence, it were [be] possible for us to escape a
crisis so full of terror and despair, posterity will not believe the
history of the present times. They will either conclude that our
distresses were imaginary, or that we had the good fortune to be
governed by men of acknowledged integrity and wisdom. They will not
believe it possible that their ancestors could have survived or
recovered from so desperate a condition, while a Duke of Grafton was
Prime Minister, a Lord North Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Weymouth and
a Hillsborough Secretaries of State, a Granby Commander-in-chief, and a
Mansfield chief criminal judge of the kingdom.
JUNIUS.
DOCTORS NOTES:
[A] 1. Dated January 21, 1769. There is a great regularity in
the structure of this letter. The first two paragraphs contain the
_exordium_. The _transition_ follows in the third paragraph, leading to
the main _proposition_, which is contained in the fourth, viz., "that
the existing discontent and disasters of the nation were justly
chargeable on the king and ministry." The next eight paragraphs are
intended to give the proof of the proposition, by reviewing the chief
departments of government, and endeavoring to show the incompetency or
mal-administration of the men to whom they were intrusted. A
_recapitulation_ follows in the last paragraph but one, leading to a
restatement of the proposition in still broader terms. This is
strengthened in the _conclusion_ by the remark, that if the nation
should escape from its desperate condition through some signal
interposition of Divine Providence, posterity would not believe the
history of the times, or consider it possible that England should have
survived a crisis "so full of terror and despair."
[B] 2. We have here the starting point of the exordium, as it
lay originally in the mind of Junius, viz., that the English nation was
"insulted and abused" by the king and ministers. But this was too strong
a statement to be brought out abruptly. Junius therefore went back, and
prepared the way by showing in successive sentences, (1.) Why a free
people obey the laws--"because they have themselves enacted them." (2.)
That this obedience is ordinarily cheerful, and almost unlimited. (3.)
That such obedience to the guardian of the laws naturally leads to a
strong affection for his person. (4.) That this affection (as shown in
their history) had often been excessive among the English, who were, in
fact, peculiarly liable to a "mistaken zeal for particular persons and
families." Hence they were equally liable (this is not said, but
implied) to have their loyalty imposed upon; and therefore the feeling
then so prevalent was well founded, that the king in his rash counsels
and reckless choice of ministers, _must_ have been taking advantage of
the generous confidence of his people, and playing on the easiness of
their temper. If so, they were _indeed_ insulted and abused. The
exordium, then, is a complete chain of logical deduction, and the case
is fully made out, provided the popular feeling referred to was correct.
And here we see where the fallacy of Junius lies, whenever he is in the
wrong. It is in _taking for granted_ one of the steps of his reasoning.
He does not, in this case, even mention the feeling alluded to, in
direct terms. He knew it was beating in the hearts of the people; his
whole preceding train of thought was calculated to justify and inflame
it, and he therefore leaps at once to the conclusion it involves, and
addresses them as actually filled with _resentment_ "to see such a
temper insulted and abused." The feeling, in this instance, was to a
great extent well founded, and so far his logic is complete. In other
cases his assumption is a false one. He lays hold of some slander of the
day, some distorted statement of facts, some maxim which is only half
true, some prevailing passion or prejudice, and dexterously
intermingling them with a train of thought which in every other respect
is logical and just, he hurries the mind to a conclusion which seems
necessarily involved in the premises. Hardly any writer has so much art
and plausibility in thus misleading the mind.
[C] 3. Here is the central idea of the letter--the
_proposition_ to be proved in respect to the king and his ministers. The
former part of this paragraph contains the major premise, the remainder
the minor down to the last sentence, which brings out the conclusion in
emphatic terms. In order to strengthen the minor, which was the most
important premise, he rapidly contrasts the condition of England before
and after the king ascended the throne. In doing this, he dilates on
those errors of the king which led to, and which account for, so
remarkable a change. Thus the conclusion is made doubly strong. This
union of severe logic with the finest rhetorical skill in filling out
the premises and giving them their utmost effect, furnishes an excellent
model for the student in oratory.
[D] 4. In this attack on the king, there is a refined artifice,
rarely if ever equaled, in leading the mind gradually forward from the
slightest possible insinuation to the bitterest irony. First we have the
"uniting of all parties," which is proper and desirable; next "trying
all characters," which suggests decidedly a want of judgment; then
"distributing the offices of state by _rotation_," a charge rendered
plausible, at least, by the frequent changes of ministers, and involving
(if true) a weakness little short of absolute fatuity. The way being
thus prepared, what was first insinuated is now openly expressed in the
next sentence. The word "_folly_" is applied to the conduct of the king
of England in the face of his subjects, and the application rendered
doubly severe by the gravest irony. Still, there is one relief. Allusion
is made to his "unbounded goodness of heart," from which, in the
preceding chain of insinuations, these errors of judgment had been
deduced. The next sentence takes this away. It directly ascribes to the
king, with an increased severity of ironical denial, some of the meanest
passions of royalty, "a capricious partiality for new faces," a "natural
love of low intrigue," "the treacherous amusement of double and triple
negotiations!" It is unnecessary to remark on the admirable precision
and force of the language in these expressions, and, indeed, throughout
the whole passage. There had been just enough in the king's conduct, for
the last seven years, to make the people suspect all this, and to weaken
or destroy their affection for the crown. It was all connected with that
system of favoritism introduced by Lord Bute, which the nation so much
abhorred. Nothing but this would have made them endure for a moment such
an attack on their monarch, and especially the absolute mockery with
which Junius concludes the whole, by speaking of "the anxiety of the
purest of all _possible_ hearts for the general welfare!" His entire
Letter to the king, with all the rancor ascribed to it by Burke, does
not contain so much bitterness and insult as are concentrated in this
single passage. While we can not but condemn its spirit, we are forced
to acknowledge that there is in this and many other passages of Junius,
a rhetorical skill in the evolution of thought which was never surpassed
by Demosthenes.
[E] 5. The Duke of Grafton, first Lord of the Treasury. It is
unnecessary to remark on the dexterity of connecting with this mention
of a treasury, "sinking under its debts and expenses," the idea of its
head being a gambler loaded with his own debts, and liable continually
to new distresses and temptations from his love of play. The thought is
wisely left here. The argument which it implies would be weakened by any
attempt to expand it. Junius often reminds us of the great Athenian
orator, in thus striking a single blow, and then passing on to some
other subject, as he does here to the apostasy of the Duke of Grafton,
his inconsistency, caprice, and irresolution.
[F] 6. Within about seven years, the king had run up a debt of
£513,000 beyond the ample allowance made for his expenses on the civil
list, and had just applied, at the opening of Parliament, for a grant to
pay it off. The nation were indignant at such overreaching. The debt,
however, was paid this session, and in a few years there was another
contracted. Thus it went on, from time to time, until 1782, when
£300,000 more were paid, in addition to a large sum during the interval.
At this time a partial provision was made, in connection with Mr.
Burke's plan of economical reform, for preventing all future
encroachments of this kind on the public revenues.
[G] 7. Notwithstanding these early difficulties, Lord North
became at last a very dexterous and effective debater.
[H] 8. This attack on Lord Chatham and his friend shows the
political affinities of Junius. He believed with Mr. Grenville and Lord
Rockingham in the _right_ of Great Britain to tax America; and in
referring to Mr. Grenville's attempt to enforce that right by the Stamp
Act, he adopts his usual course of interweaving an argument in its favor
into the language used.[1] He thus prepares the way for his censures on
Lord Chatham and Lord Camden, affirming that they acted on the principle
that "Mr. Grenville was at _any rate_ to be distressed because he was
minister and they were in opposition," thus implying that they were
actuated by factious and selfish views in their defense of America.
About a year after this letter was written, Lord Rockingham was
reconciled to Lord Chatham and Lord Camden, and all united to break down
the Grafton ministry. Junius now turned round and wrote his celebrated
eulogium on Lord Chatham, contained in his fifty-fourth letter, in which
he says, "Recorded honors shall gather round his monument, and thicken
over him. It is a solid fabric, and will support the laurels that adorn
it. I am not conversant in the language of panegyric. These praises are
extorted from me; but they will wear well, for they have been dearly
earned." The last of his letters was addressed to Lord Camden, in which
he says, "I turn with pleasure from that barren waste, in which no
salutary plant takes root, no verdure quickens, to a character fertile,
as I willingly believe, in every great and good qualification."
Political men have certainly a peculiar faculty of viewing the
characters of others under very different lights, as they happen to
affect their own interests and feelings.[2]
[I] 9. The "arbitrary condition" was that the General Court of
Massachusetts should rescind one of their own resolutions and expunge it
from their records. The whole of this passage in relation to
Hillsborough is as correct in point of fact, as it is well reasoned and
finely expressed.
[J] 10. The changes here censured had taken place about three
months before. The office of Foreign Secretary for the Southern
Department was made vacant by the resignation of Lord Shelburne.[3] Lord
Rochford, who had been minister to France, and thus made "acquainted
with the temper of the Southern courts," ought naturally to have been
appointed (if at all) to this department. Instead of this he was made
Secretary of the Northern Department, for which he had been prepared by
no previous knowledge; while Lord Weymouth was taken from the Home
Department, and placed in the Southern, being "_equally_ qualified"
[that is, wholly unqualified by any "experience whatsoever"] for either
department in the Foreign office, whether Southern or Northern.
[K] 11. As Secretary of the Home Department, Lord Weymouth had
addressed a letter to the magistrates of London, early in 1768, advising
them to call in the military, provided certain disturbances in the
streets should continue. The idea of setting the soldiery to fire on
masses of unarmed men has always been abhorrent to the English nation.
It was, therefore, a case admirably suited to the purposes of this
Letter. In using it to inflame the people against Lord Weymouth, Junius
charitably supposes that he was not repeating the errors of his
youth--that he was neither drunk, nor ignorant of what he did, nor
impelled by "the furious spirit" of one of the proudest families of the
realm--all of which Lord Weymouth would certainly say--and therefore
(which his Lordship must also admit) that he did, from "the deliberate
motion of his heart, supported by the best of his judgment," sign a
paper which the great body of the people considered as authorizing
promiscuous murder, and which actually resulted in the death of fourteen
persons three weeks after. The whole is so wrought up as to create the
feeling, that Lord Weymouth was in _both_ of these states of mind--that
he acted with _deliberation_ in carrying out the dictates of headlong or
drunken passion.
All this, of course, is greatly exaggerated. Severe measures did seem
indispensable to suppress the mobs of that day, and, whoever stood forth
to direct them, must of necessity incur the popular indignation. Still,
it was a question among the most candid men, whether milder means might
not have been effectual.
[L] 12. The Marquess of Granby, personally considered, was
perhaps the most popular member of the cabinet, with the exception of
Sir Edward Hawke. He was a warm-hearted man, of highly social qualities
and generous feelings. As it was the object of Junius to break down the
ministry, it was peculiarly necessary for him to blast and destroy his
popularity. This he attempts to do by discrediting the character of the
marquess, as a man of firmness, strength of mind, and disinterestedness
in managing the concerns of the army. This attack is distinguished for
its plausibility and bitterness. It is clear that Junius was in some way
connected with the army or with the War Department, and that in this
situation he had not only the means of very exact information, but some
private grudge against the Commander-in-chief.[4] His charges and
insinuations are greatly overstrained; but it is certain that the army
was moldering away at this time in a manner which left the country in a
very defenseless condition. Lord Chatham showed this by incontestible
evidence, in his speech on the Falkland Islands, delivered about a year
after this Letter was written.
[M] 13. It is unnecessary to say that Lord Mansfield is here
pointed at. No one now believes that this great jurist ever did the
things here ascribed to him by Junius.[5] All that is true is, that he
was a very high Tory, and was, therefore, naturally led to exalt the
prerogatives of the crown; and that he was a very politic man (and this
was the great failing in his character), and therefore unwilling to
oppose the king or his ministers, when he knew in heart they were wrong.
This was undoubtedly the case in respect to the issuing of a general
warrant for apprehending Wilkes, which he ought publicly to have
condemned; but, as he remained silent, men naturally considered him, in
his character of Chief Justice, as having approved of the course
directed by the king. Hence Mansfield was held responsible for the
treatment of Wilkes, of whom Junius here speaks in very nearly the terms
used by Lord Chatham, as a man whose "conduct" he censured, but with
whom every moderate man must "make common cause," when he was
"persecuted in a way which the real spirit of the laws will not
justify."
COMMENTS ON THE DOCTOR'S NOTES.
Note 8, p. 28. [1.] The doctor is here in error. In no place does Junius
use language which can even be distorted into an argument in favor of
enforcing the _right_ to tax America. He here attacks the opposition or
minority because they had from _selfish motives_ divided one-half of the
empire from the other. He states the views of Mr. Grenvile on the
subject of taxing the colonies, _but not his own_. Elsewhere, however,
he does, and this is his language: "Junius considers the right of taxing
the colonies by an act of the British Legislature as a _speculative_
right merely, never to be exerted, nor ever to be renounced."--Let. 63.
But Camden and Pitt denied the _right_.--Bancroft, vol. v., pp. 395,
403. Junius stood between the two parties in regard to taxing the
colonies, hence could not be a partisan.
[2.] Here again is an error. Rockingham and Chatham led the two wings of
the minority. The former was in favor of septennial, the latter of
triennial parliaments.--Let. 52. Herein Junius agreed with Chatham, and
hence could not be a partisan of Rockingham.--Let. 53. But because
Junius eulogized Chatham, he was said to be a partisan of Chatham, which
he afterwards contradicts when he compiled his letters, in a note to the
name of Mr. Pitt in his first letter, and is as follows: "And yet
Junius has been called the partisan of Lord Chatham." In Letter 53,
Junius denies partisanship to both. Neither did he agree with Lord
Camden, and mildly censures him for his action.--Let. 59. Junius was
never a partisan, as will be fully proven hereafter. This shows how
limited a knowledge the doctor had of Junius, and also how unfit to
comment on these matters of fact. He had not even caught the design or
spirit of Junius. He was advocating the cause of the people and not the
cause of any party or faction.
Note 10, p. 31. [3.] Shelburne was _dismissed_; he did not resign. This
is a grave error in the doctor, when the conduct of king and ministers
is the theme, and when we are studying the motives and character of the
writer. As I wish to excite inquiry, in the mind of the reader, to lead
him to a just method of criticism and investigation, I will briefly
state how I detected even so apparently trifling a mistake as the above.
The first sentence of the paragraph is as follows: "Drawing lots would
be a prudent and reasonable method of appointing the officers of state
compared to a late disposition of the secretary's office." After reading
this, and then the note, it occurred to me that the king should not be
so severely censured for any mistake in judgment in filling an office
suddenly left vacant by a resignation. If the writer did so he was
malignant, and ought to be condemned by all liberal-minded and good
people. And after having studied thoroughly the character of Mr. Paine,
for I now supposed him to be the author, I said: although the language
is his, the spirit is not. I confess this staggered me not a little,
but in a few moments I regained myself, after reading these lines from
Bancroft's History, vol. vi., pp. 214, 215, 216: "Yielding to the daily
importunities of the king, Grafton prepared to _dismiss_ Shelburne....
Shelburne was removed. The resignation of Chatham instantly followed....
The removal of Shelburne opened the cabinet to the ignorant and
incapable Earl of Rochford, who owed his selection to the mediocrity of
his talents and the impossibility of finding a secretary of state more
thoroughly submissive." This was satisfactory to me. What was evidence
against my hypothesis by the note of Doctor Goodrich, was evidence in
favor of it when the facts were known. This shows how careless men
become who do not have in view a scientific method, and who do not
search after the soul of things, but content themselves with a
superficial reading. I would here warn the reader to question the
statement of any writer which does not come with more than a plausible
degree of truth. The day of historic fable is past. History is a
science. The man of science takes but little on authority not capable of
proof, and it is through this scientific method that the humblest mind,
capable of rational judgment, becomes supreme over itself.
Note 12, p. 34. [4.] That Junius had a private grudge against Lord
Granby, is an affirmation not supported by the facts. Junius himself
says, in a note to Letter 7: "The death of Lord Granby was lamented by
Junius. He undoubtedly owed some compensations to the public, and seemed
determined to acquit himself of them. In private life he was
unquestionably that good man, who, for the interest of his country,
ought to have been a great one. I speak of him now without partiality.
_I never spoke of him with resentment._ His mistakes in public conduct
did not arise either from want of sentiment, or want of judgment, but in
general from the difficulty of saying _no_ to the bad people who
surrounded him."
Note 13, p. 36. [5.] To which I reply: every student of history _does_
believe just the things ascribed to Lord Mansfield by Junius, and as the
doctor has given us no authority in support of his rash affirmation, I
will dismiss him to the tender mercies of those who will search for
themselves.
ESTIMATE OF JUNIUS, BY MR. BURKE.[A]
How comes this JUNIUS to have broke through the cobwebs of the law, and
to range uncontrolled, unpunished, through the land? The myrmidons of
the court have been long, and are still, pursuing him in vain. They will
not spend their time upon me, or you, or you. No; they disdain such
vermin, when the mighty boar of the forest that has broken through all
their toils, is before them. But what will all their efforts avail? No
sooner has he wounded one than he lays another dead at his feet. For my
part, when I saw his attack upon the king, I own my blood ran cold. I
thought that he had ventured too far, and there was an end of his
triumphs. Not that he had not asserted many truths. Yes, sir, there are
in that composition many bold truths, by which a wise prince might
profit. It was the rancor and venom with which I was struck. In these
respects the North Briton is as much inferior to him as in strength,
wit, and judgment. But while I expected in this daring flight his final
ruin and fall, behold him rising still higher, and coming down souse
upon both houses of Parliament. Yes, he did make _you_ his quarry, and
you still bleed from the wounds of his talons. You crouched, and still
crouch, beneath his rage. Nor has he dreaded the terrors of your brow,
sir;[B] he has attacked even you--he has--and I believe you have no
reason to triumph in the encounter. In short, after carrying away our
Royal Eagle in his pounces, and dashing him against a rock, he has laid
you prostrate. Kings, Lords, and Commons are but the sport of his fury.
Were he a member of this House, what might not be expected from his
knowledge, his firmness, and integrity? He would be easily known by his
contempt of all danger, by his penetration, by his vigor. Nothing would
escape his vigilance and activity. Bad ministers could conceal nothing
from his sagacity; nor could promises or threats induce him to conceal
any thing from the public.
FOOTNOTES:
[A] From a speech delivered in the House of Commons.
[B] Sir Fletcher Norton, Speaker of the House, was
distinguished for the largeness of his overhanging eyebrows.
SOCIAL POSITION.
What was the position of Junius in society? Was he a man of fortune or
of humble means? Was he a peer, or the leader of a party or faction, or
was he one of the common people? Let Junius tell. In his reply to Sir
William Draper, he says: "I will not contend with you in point of
composition--you are a scholar, Sir William, and, if I am truly
informed, you write Latin with almost as much purity as English. Suffer
me then (for I am a plain, unlettered man) to continue that style of
interrogation which suits my capacity."--Let. 7. In the following the
italics are Junius'. He had been upbraided by Sir William for his
assumed signature, and replied: "I should have hoped that even _my_ name
might carry some authority with it, if I had not seen how very little
weight or consideration a printed paper receives, even from the
respectable signature of Sir William Draper."--Let. 3. Again, he says:
"Mine, I confess, are humble labors. I do not presume to instruct the
learned, but simply to inform the body of the people, and I prefer that
channel of conveyance which is likely to spread farthest among
them."--Let. 22. Again: "Welbore Ellis, what say you? Is this the law of
Parliament, or is it not? I am a plain man, sir, and can not follow you
through the phlegmatic forms of an oration. Speak out, Gildrig! Say yes
or no."--Let. 47. Again: "I speak to the people as one of the
people."--Let. 58. In Let. 57 he says he is a "stranger" to the Livery
of London. He says, also, in Let. 25, to Sir William Draper: "I believe,
sir, you will never know me. A considerable time must certainly elapse
before we are personally acquainted." This language is not equivocal.
They neither of them personally knew the other. In Let. 18 he says he is
not personally known to Mr. Grenville, a member of the House of Commons.
Nor was he a collegian or lawyer. In Let. 53 he says: "I speak to facts
with which all of us are conversant. I speak to men and to their
experience, and will not descend to answer the little sneering
sophistries of a collegian." And again: "This may be logic at Cambridge,
or at the treasury, but among men of sense and honor it is folly or
villainy in the extreme." In Let. 7 he says to Sir William Draper: "An
academical education has given you an unlimited command over the most
beautiful figures of speech. Masks, hatchets, racks, and vipers dance
through your letters in all the mazes of metaphorical confusion." This
is one of Junius' most withering sarcasms. In his Preface he says: "I am
no lawyer by profession, nor do I pretend to be more deeply read than
every English gentleman should be in the laws of his country." ... "I
speak to the plain understanding of the people, and appeal to their
honest, liberal construction of me." And of the Letters he says in the
Dedication: "To me, originally, they owe nothing but a healthy, sanguine
constitution."
Now, from the above facts, and the method of elimination, it may be
affirmed, Junius was not prominent before the English nation. He was
not a peer, nor member of the House of Commons. He could not have been
an army officer. He was not a collegian, nor a lawyer. What, then, was
he? Just what he says himself to be: "one of the common people, with a
healthy, sanguine constitution," but by no means without genius,
education, and practical knowledge.
JUNIUS NOT A PARTISAN.
But let us continue the method of elimination till we find his true
position. Because we can not safely affirm what he was, till we know in
some particulars, what he was not; and it is thus the spirit and object
of Junius may be made visible. I affirm, therefore, Junius was not a
partisan. In proof of which I submit the following, from Let. 58, to the
study of the reader:
"No man laments more sincerely than I do the unhappy differences
which have arisen among the friends of the people, and divided
them from each other. The cause, undoubtedly, suffers as well by
the diminution of that strength which union carries along with it,
as by the separate loss of personal reputation, which every man
sustains when his character and conduct are frequently held forth
in odious or contemptible colors. The differences are only
advantageous to the common enemy[A] of the country. The hearty
friends of the cause are provoked and disgusted. The lukewarm
advocate avails himself of any pretense, to relapse into that
indolent indifference about every thing that ought to interest an
Englishman, so unjustly dignified with the title of moderation.
The false, insidious partisan, who creates or foments the
disorder, sees the fruit of his dishonest industry ripen beyond
his hopes, and rejoices in the promise of a banquet, only
delicious to such an appetite as his own. It is time for those who
really mean the _Cause_ and the _People_, who have no view to
private advantage, and who have virtue enough to prefer the
general good of the community to the gratification of personal
animosities--it is time for such men to interpose. Let us try
whether these fatal dissensions may not yet be reconciled; or, if
that be impracticable, let us guard, at least, against the worst
effects of division, and endeavor to persuade these furious
partisans, if they will not consent to draw together, to be
separately useful to that cause which they all pretend to be
attached to. Honor and honesty must not be renounced, although a
thousand modes of right and wrong were to occupy the degrees of
morality between Zeno and Epicurus. The fundamental principles of
Christianity may still be preserved, though every zealous sectary
adheres to his own exclusive doctrine, and pious ecclesiastics
make it a part of their religion to persecute one another. The
civil constitution, too--that legal liberty, that general creed
which every Englishman professes--may still be supported, though
Wilkes and Horne, and Townsend and Sawbridge, should obstinately
refuse to communicate; and even if the fathers of the Church--if
Saville, Richmond, Camden, Rockingham, and Chatham should disagree
in the ceremonies of their political worship, and even in the
interpretation of twenty texts of Magna Charta. I speak to the
people as one of the people. Let us employ these men in whatever
departments their various abilities are best suited to, and as
much to the advantage of the common cause as their different
inclinations will permit. They can not serve us without
essentially serving themselves."
In the above Junius places himself on the side of the people, and
clearly above all party or faction. But he continues:
"I have too much respect for the abilities of Mr. Horne, to
flatter myself that these gentlemen will ever be cordially
re-united. It is not, however, unreasonable to expect, that each
of them should act his separate part with honor and integrity to
the public. As for differences of opinion upon speculative
questions, if we wait until they are reconciled, the action of
human affairs must be suspended forever. But neither are we to
look for perfection in any one man, nor for agreement among many.
When Lord Chatham affirms that the authority of the British
legislature is not supreme over the colonies in the same sense in
which it is supreme over Great Britain; when Lord Camden supposes
a necessity (which the king is to judge of), and, founded upon
that necessity, attributes to the crown a legal power (not given
by the act itself) to suspend the operation of an act of the
legislature, I listen to them both, with diffidence and respect,
but without the smallest degree of conviction or assent. Yet I
doubt not they delivered their real sentiments, nor ought they to
be hastily condemned.... I mean only to illustrate one useful
proposition, which it is the intention of this paper to inculcate,
'That we should not generally reject the friendship or services of
any man because he differs from us in a particular opinion.' This
will not appear a superfluous caution, if we observe the ordinary
conduct of mankind. In public affairs, there is the least chance
of a perfect concurrence of sentiment or inclination; yet every
man is able to contribute something to the common stock, and no
man's contribution should be rejected. If individuals have no
virtues, their vices may be of use to us. I care not with what
principle the new-born patriot is animated, if the measures he
supports are beneficial to the community. The nation is interested
in his conduct. His motives are his own. The properties of a
patriot are perishable in the individual; but there is a quick
succession of subjects, and the breed is worth preserving. The
spirit of the Americans may be an useful example to us. Our dogs
and horses are only English upon English ground; but patriotism,
it seems, may be improved by transplanting. I will not reject a
bill which tends to confine parliamentary privilege within
reasonable bounds, though it should be stolen from the house of
Cavendish, and introduced by Mr. Onslow. The features of the
infant are a proof of the descent, and vindicate the noble birth
from the baseness of the adoption.[B] I will willingly accept a
sarcasm from Colonel Barré,[C] or a simile from Mr. Burke.[D] Even
the silent vote of Mr. Calcraft is worth reckoning in a division.
What though he riots in the plunder of the army, and has only
determined to be a patriot when he could not be a peer? Let us
profit by the assistance of such men while they are with us, and
place them, if it be possible, in the post of danger to prevent
desertion. The wary Wedderburne, the pompous Suffolk, never threw
away the scabbard, nor ever went upon a forlorn hope. They always
treated the king's servants as men with whom, some time or other,
they might probably be in friendship. When a man who stands forth
for the public, has gone that length from which there is no
practicable retreat, when he has given that kind of personal
offense, which a pious monarch never pardons, I then begin to
think him in earnest, and that he will never have occasion to
solicit the forgiveness of his country. But instances of a
determination so entire and unreserved are rarely to be met with.
Let us take mankind as they are; let us distribute the virtues and
abilities of individuals, according to the offices they affect;
and when they quit the service, let us endeavor to supply their
places with better men than we have lost. In this country there
are always candidates enough for popular favor. The temple of fame
is the shortest passage to riches and preferment.
"Above all things, let me guard my countrymen against the
meanness and folly of accepting of a trifling or moderate
compensation for extraordinary and essential injuries. Our enemy
treats us as the cunning trader does the unskillful Indian; they
magnify their generosity, when they give us baubles of little
proportionate value for ivory and gold. The same House of Commons
who robbed the constituent body of their right of free election;
who presume to make a law, under pretense of declaring it; who
paid our good king's debts, without once inquiring how they were
incurred; who gave thanks for repeated murders committed at home,
and for national infamy incurred abroad; who screened Lord
Mansfield; who imprisoned the magistrates of the metropolis for
asserting the subjects' right to the protection of the laws; who
erased a judicial record, and ordered all proceedings in criminal
suit to be suspended; this very House of Commons have graciously
consented that their own members may be compelled to pay their
debts, and that contested elections shall, for the future, be
determined with some decent regard to the merits of the case. The
event of the suit is of no consequence to the crown. While
parliaments are septennial, the purchase of the sitting member or
of the petitioner, makes but the difference of a day. Concessions
such as these, are of little moment to the sum of things; unless
it be to prove that the worst of men are sensible of the injuries
they have done us, and perhaps to demonstrate to us the imminent
danger of our situation. In the shipwreck of the state, trifles
float, and are preserved; while every thing solid and valuable
sinks to the bottom, and is lost forever."
* * * * *
Nor did Junius ever receive pay for his writings. The charges made
against him are thus briefly disposed of: "To write for profit, without
taxing the press; to write for fame, and to be unknown; to support the
intrigues of faction, and to be disowned as a dangerous auxiliary by
every party in the kingdom, are contradictions which the minister must
reconcile before I forfeit my credit with the public. I may quit the
service, but it would be absurd to charge me with desertion. The
reputation of these papers is an honorable pledge for my attachment to
the people.... But, in truth, sir, I have left no room for an
accommodation with the piety of St. James'. My offenses are not to be
redeemed by recantation or repentance. On one side, our warmest patriots
would disclaim me as a burthen to their honest ambition. On the other,
the vilest prostitution, if Junius could descend to it, would lose its
natural merit and influence in the cabinet, and treachery be no longer a
recommendation to the royal favor."--Let. 44. "He is not paid for his
labor, and certainly has a right to choose his employment."--Let. 63.
"As for myself, it is no longer a question whether I shall mix with the
throng and take a single share in the danger. Whenever Junius appears he
must encounter a host of enemies. But is there no honorable way to serve
the public without engaging in personal quarrels with insignificant
individuals, or submitting to the drudgery of canvassing votes for an
election? Is there no merit in dedicating my life to the information of
my fellow-subjects? What public question have I declined? What villain
have I spared? Is there no labor in the composition of these
letters?"--Let. 53.
In compiling the Letters, he says in his Preface: "The printer will
readily acquit me of any view to my own profit. I undertake this
troublesome task merely to serve a man who has deserved well of me and
the public, and who, on my account, has been exposed to an expensive,
tyrannical prosecution." This was Mr. Woodfall, publisher of the _Public
Advertiser_.
I am now prepared to ask: What, then, was the object of Junius? What
does he mean by "The _Cause_ and the _People_"? To what _Cause_ has he
"_dedicated his life_"? and which, if he should desert, would be the
"_vilest prostitution_?" Why this great zeal and disinterested
benevolence? Aloof from party, unknown to the public, writing for
neither fame nor favor, what is the meaning of this literary
adventurer?
FOOTNOTES:
[A] King, ministers, and parliament.
[B] That the reader may see the value Junius placed on such men
as Onslow, I will place before him a short address of Junius to the
king: "As you are a young man, sir, who ought to have a life of
happiness in prospect; as you are a husband, as you are a father (your
filial duties I own have been religiously performed), is it _bona fide_
for your interest or your honor, to sacrifice your domestic
tranquillity, and to live in perpetual disagreement with your people,
merely to preserve such a chain of beings as North, Barrington,
Weymouth, Gower, Ellis, Onslow, Rigby, Jerry Dyson, and Sandwich? Their
very names are a satire upon all government, and I defy the gravest of
your chaplains to read the catalogue without laughing."
[C] Isaac Barré defended the colonies and opposed the Stamp Act
in the House of Commons with "a display of eloquence, which astonished
all who heard him." When the ministry in 1771 tried to suppress the
practice of reporting the parliamentary debates, he denounced them and
the House of Commons in the strongest and most sarcastic terms; and
after closing his speech he "left the house, calling upon every honest
man to follow him." The letters of Junius were afterwards attributed to
him.
[D] "_A simile from Mr. Burke._" One is here forcibly reminded
how prophetic this sarcasm is of what Mr. Paine will say in his Rights
of Man, of Mr. Burke's imagery: "I have now to follow Mr. Burke through
a pathless wilderness of rhapsodies." ... "His intention was to make an
attack on the French revolution; but instead of proceeding with an
orderly arrangement he has stormed it with a mob of ideas, tumbling over
and destroying one another."
A REVOLUTIONIST.
The object of Junius was to produce a revolution in England, to dethrone
the king, depose the ministry, dissolve Parliament, and bring the
constitution back to its original principles. He defends, at the same
time, the action of the American colonies, and encourages them to move
on with the work.
It is, perhaps, noticeable to the historian, and especially if he
studies the causes of human action, that great movements in behalf of
human weal are at no given time confined to a particular locality, but
that they, in a measure, span the world. They at least radiate till they
affect the whole of a particular type of mankind. Nor is this
attributable altogether to commerce and a social interchange of thought,
for these take time; but it seems as though, at times, convulsions of
thought instantaneously affect great classes of people widely separated
by ocean or country. The study of mobs and riots in America, England,
and France would lead to this conclusion. It is, however, not a mooted
point, that the same cause which moved the colonies to action just prior
to the revolution, at the same time convulsed the English nation. The
tyranny of king, ministers, and Parliament put its heel on the neck of
Englishmen as well as Americans. The people rose in rebellion there as
well as here. Patriots arose in England as well as in America, and
foremost among them all was Junius, for he fought the battle of freedom
for the whole world.
But that Junius meant _war_ in England, is evident from almost every
letter. I will give a few extracts in proof. In his Dedication he says:
"Although the king should continue to support his present system of
government, the period is not very distant at which you will have the
means of redress in your own power: it may be nearer, perhaps, than any
of us expect; and I would warn you to be prepared for it." If Thomas
Paine wrote the Letters of Junius, he said this just before departing
for America.
In his address to the Livery of London, he says, in regard to the
candidates for election: "Will they grant you common halls when it shall
be necessary? Will they go up with remonstrances to the king? Have they
firmness enough to meet the fury of a venal House of Commons? Have they
fortitude enough not to shrink at imprisonment? Have they spirit enough
to hazard their _lives and fortunes_ in a _contest_, if it should be
necessary, with a prostituted legislature? If these questions can fairly
be answered in the affirmative, your choice is made. Forgive this
passionate language. I am unable to correct it. The subject comes home
to us all. It is the language of my heart."--Let. 57. Upon the
appointment of Luttrell as adjutant-general, and who, thereupon, takes
command of the army in Ireland, Junius says: "My Lord, though it may
not be possible to trace this measure to its source, we can follow the
stream, and warn the country of its approaching destruction. The English
nation must be roused and put upon its guard. Mr. Luttrell has already
shown us how far he may be trusted, whenever an open attack is to be
made upon the liberties of this country. I do not doubt that there is a
deliberate plan formed. Your lordship best knows by whom. The corruption
of the legislative body on this side, a military force on the other, and
then, _farewell to England_."--Let. 40. Addressed to Lord North. The
italics are his own.
Speaking of the king, he says: "If he loves his people, he will dissolve
the parliament which they can never confide in or respect. If he has any
regard for his own honor, he will disdain to be any longer connected
with such abandoned prostitution. But if it were conceivable [and it was
with Junius] that a king of this country had lost all sense of personal
honor, and all concern for the welfare of his subjects, I confess, sir,
I should be contented to renounce the forms of the constitution once
more, if there were no other way to obtain substantial justice for the
people."--Let. 44. Any one who is acquainted with the English
constitution knows that "its forms" can not be renounced without a
revolution. And as to his opinion of the king, he says, "his virtues had
ceased to be a question." ... "The man I speak of [the king] has not a
heart to feel for the frailties of his fellow creatures. It is their
virtues that afflict, it is their vices that console him."--Let. 53. But
this will be brought out more strongly in my _Parallels_, and I will
leave it here and pass on to speak of his _sympathy with the colonies_.
* * * * *
It has perhaps been already noticed by the reader, that Junius, in the
extracts given, spoke in the most respectful terms of the colonies. But
when he says: "The spirit of the Americans may be an useful example to
us;" and, "patriotism may be improved by transplanting," he meant more
than praise of the colonies. He meant to stir up the English nation to
action and rebellion. He speaks of the affections of the colonies as
having been "alienated from their common country" by a series of
inconsistent measures.--Let. 1 and Let. 3. But in no instance does he
blame them. In his address to the king, he says: "The distance of the
colonies would make it impossible for them to take an active concern in
your affairs, if they were as well affected to your government as they
once pretended to be to your person. They are ready enough to
distinguish between you and your ministers. They complained of an act of
the legislature, but traced the origin of it no higher than to the
servants of the crown; they pleased themselves with the hope that their
sovereign, if not favorable to their cause, at least was impartial. They
consider you as united with your servants against America; and know how
to distinguish the sovereign and a venal parliament on one side, from
the real sentiments of the English people on the other. Looking forward
to independence, they might possibly receive you for their king; but if
ever you retire to America [this would be after Junius had effected a
revolution in England], be assured they will give you such a covenant
to digest as the presbytery of Scotland would have been ashamed to offer
to Charles the Second. They left their native land in search of freedom,
and found it in a desert. Divided, as they are, into a thousand forms of
policy and religion, there is one point in which they all agree: they
equally detest the pageantry of a king, and the supercilious hypocrisy
of a bishop."--Let. 35. Oliver Cromwell he calls an "accomplished
president," and extols his genius.--Let. 14. Much more could be given of
the same nature, but this is sufficient.
REVIEW OF JUNIUS.
I wish the reader to catch the spirit of Junius, and to this end I will
briefly review the book.
Junius, before beginning, has an orderly plan for his literary campaign.
He opens it with the new year, and closes it with the same. He begins
with a full and sweeping broadside at king, ministers, and parliament,
at the same time defending the English people and the American colonies.
He knew this would call forth a return fire, for which he held himself
in readiness. He expected a defense of the Duke of Grafton, but was
disappointed in this, for it came from Sir William Draper, in behalf of
Lord Granby. After he had temporarily silenced this gun, the last shot
from Sir William being, "Cease, viper!" he pours charge after charge
into Grafton, the prime minister. He does not attack the king at this
time, for the reason that "it had been a maxim of the English
government, not unwillingly admitted by the people, that every
ungracious or severe exertion of the prerogative should be placed to the
account of the minister; but that whenever an act of grace or
benevolence was to be performed, the whole merit of it should be
attributable to the sovereign himself." That is, the maxim that "The
king can do no wrong," was yet admitted by the people, and for Junius
to attack the king instead of the prime minister, would have thwarted
his design, which was, as before stated, _Revolution_. Nor does Junius
dare to assault the throne till he has brought forth a response in
defense of Grafton, knowing that when it came it must reflect on the
king. The last of May of the first year he had brought all his charges
against Grafton, and to them there had been no response but "the flat
general charge of scurrility and falsehood." This Junius did not deign
to answer. He now appears over the signature of Philo Junius, compiling
the facts and giving them in their order. The principle charges were: an
invasion upon "the first rights of the people and the first principles
of the constitution" by the arbitrary appointment of Mr. Luttrell as a
member of the House of Commons in the place of Mr. Wilkes, who, at the
king's solicitation, had been expelled: the disgraceful conduct of
Grafton in associating with a prostitute in public: the charge of
bastardy upon the duke: the desertion of Lord Chatham: the betrayal of
Rockingham and Wilkes: his vascillating and weak action in regard to the
colonies: and marrying the near relative of a man who had debauched his
wife. But nothing could provoke any reply worthy of an answer by Junius
till he, near the close of the year, brought forward the charge against
Grafton of "selling a patent place in the collection of customs at
Exeter to one Mr. Hine." Junius says of this: "No sale by the candle was
ever conducted with greater formality. I thank God! there is not in
human nature a degree of impudence daring enough to deny the charge I
have fixed upon you." To aggravate this charge, Junius works up
another, which is as follows: "A little before the publication of this
and the preceding letter, the Duke of Grafton had commenced a
prosecution against Mr. Samuel Vaughan for endeavoring to corrupt his
integrity by an offer of five thousand pounds for a patent place in
Jamaica." But now the duke is charged by Junius with the acceptance of a
bribe from Mr. Hine, and to save the duke from impeachment, and Lord
Mansfield from embarrassment, the prosecution is immediately dropped.
See Let. 34. In a note to the above Letter Junius says: "From the
publication of the preceding to this date, not one word was said in
defense of the Duke of Grafton. But vice and impudence soon regained
themselves, and the sale of the royal favor was openly avowed and
defended. We acknowledge the piety of St. James', but what has become of
its morality?"
It is now the 12th of December, and on the 19th Junius assaults the
throne. Till now there was no opportunity offered, for up to this time
the king stood within the impregnable fortress, "The king can do no
wrong." Junius, while he acknowledges this maxim, does so merely to get
the ear of the king, for he afterward in his Preface takes occasion to
place himself right before the public. But having once entered the
king's castle, he makes George the Third the most insignificant and
detestable object on earth. It is the most powerful piece of satire
against kingcraft in the English language, and while it remains to be
read by the people, kings may look on and tremble. Junius also in this
not only hints _war_, but threatens _revolution_. In closing he says:
"But this is not a time to trifle with your fortune. They deceive you,
sir, who tell you that you have many friends whose affections are
founded upon a principle of personal attachment. The fortune which made
you a king forbade you to have a friend. It is a law of nature which can
not be violated with impunity. The mistaken prince who looks for
friendship, will find a favorite, and in that favorite the ruin of his
affairs." And the closing sentence is: "While he plumes himself upon the
security of his title to the crown, should remember, that, as it was
acquired by one revolution, it may be lost by another."--Let. 35.
But Junius failed to produce the desired effect. The spirit of
revolution was now at its height. The ocean must ebb. A reaction
follows, and during two years more Junius strives to put new life into
the flagging energies of his countrymen, and to kindle anew the fire of
liberty. But the flame goes out.
The commons have been corrupted by the king, and now the lords give way:
"The three branches of the legislature (king, lords, and commons) seem
to treat their separate rights and interests as the Roman triumvirs did
their friends; they reciprocally sacrifice them to the animosities of
each other, and establish a detestable union among themselves upon the
ruin of the laws and liberty of the commonwealth."--Let. 39.
Of the House of Lords he says: "By resolving that they had no right to
impeach a judgment of the House of Commons in any case whatsoever, where
that house has a competent jurisdiction, they in effect gave up that
constitutional check and reciprocal control of one branch of the
legislature over the other, which is, perhaps, the greatest and most
important object provided for by the division of the whole legislative
power into three estates; and now let the judicial decisions of the
House of Commons be ever so extravagant, let their declarations of law
be ever so flagrantly false, arbitrary, and oppressive to the subject,
the House of Lords have imposed a slavish silence upon themselves; they
can not interpose; they can not protect the subject; they can not defend
the laws of their country. A concession so extraordinary in itself, so
contradictory to the principles of their own institution, can not but
alarm the most unsuspecting mind."--Let. 39. Junius, in a note to this
Letter, calls for a leader upon this state of facts: "The man who
resists and overcomes this iniquitous power assumed by the lords, must
be supported by the whole people. We have the laws on our side, and want
nothing but an intrepid leader. When such a man stands forth, let the
nation look to it. It is not his cause, but our own."
But the leader did not come, and Junius is no more known to England.
After such declarations it would outrage all degrees of probability to
suppose that Junius revealed himself to the king and ministry, and that
they conferred on him a fat office for what he had written. I will not
insult the common sense of my readers by offering an argument against
it, founded upon the laws of human nature. And yet, Lord Macaulay has
surrendered his reason to just such an assumption. Had Junius ever
revealed himself to the king and his "detestable junto," that would have
been the last of him.
Before I take my leave of Junius, I will give two extracts in which he
sounds, TO ARMS!
He is addressing the Duke of Grafton: "You have now brought the merits
of your administration to an issue, on which every Englishman, of the
narrowest capacity, may determine for himself; it is not an alarm to the
passions, but a calm appeal to the judgment of the people upon their own
most essential interests. A more experienced minister would not have
hazarded a direct invasion of the first principles of the constitution
before he had made some progress in subduing the spirit of the people.
With such a cause as yours, my lord, it is not sufficient that you have
the court at your devotion, unless you find means to corrupt or
intimidate the jury. The collective body of the people form that jury,
and from their decision there is but one appeal. Whether you have
talents to support you at a crisis of such difficulty and danger, should
long ago have been considered."--Let. 15.
"My lord, you should not encourage these appeals to Heaven. The pious
prince from whom you are supposed to descend made such frequent use of
them in his public declarations, that, at last, the people also found it
necessary to appeal to Heaven in their turn. Your administration has
driven us into circumstances of equal distress--beware, at least, how
you remind us of the remedy."--Let. 9.
Junius breathed the spirit of revolution. This is the purpose, and only
purpose, of the Letters, namely: to produce a revolution in England.
And, if Thomas Paine was Junius, the idea never left him. As this is a
fact which extends through the life of Mr. Paine, I shall offer some
proof here, on this point, as amidst the multiplicity of facts and
arguments it may hereafter escape me. It will serve, also, to introduce
Mr. Paine to the reader.
An obscure English exciseman has now been a little more than two years
in America, and _just_ five years since Junius wrote his last Letter; he
has written "Common Sense" and one "Crisis;" he has revolutionized
public sentiment in America, the Declaration of Independence has been
sent abroad to the world, and the war well begun, when in his second
"Crisis" he indites the following to Lord Howe: "I, who know England and
the disposition of the people well, am confident that it is easier for
us to effect a revolution there than you a conquest here. A few thousand
men landed in England with the declared design of deposing the present
king, bringing his ministers to trial, and setting up the Duke of
Gloucester in his stead, would assuredly carry their point while you
were groveling here ignorant of the matter. As I send all my papers to
England, this, like Common Sense, will find its way there; and, though
it may put one party on their guard, it will inform the other and the
nation in general of our design to help them."
{66}Here Mr. Paine has announced the name of the leader whom Junius called
for. But Paine proposes to do Junius over again. Hear him! In the year
1792 he writes: "During the war, in the latter end of the year 1780, I
formed to myself the design of coming over to England.... I was strongly
impressed with the idea that if I could get over to England without
being known, and only remain in safety till I could get out a
publication, I could open the eyes of the country with respect to the
madness and stupidity of its government. I saw that the parties in
parliament had pitted themselves as far as they could go, and could make
no new impression on each other. General Greene entered fully into my
views, but the affair of Arnold and Andre happening just after, he
changed his mind, and, under strong apprehensions for my safety, wrote
to me very pressingly to give up the design, which, with some
reluctance, I did." He afterward renews the same design. In accompanying
Colonel Laurens to France, certain dispatches from the English
government fell into his hands through the capture of an English
frigate. These dispatches Paine read at Paris, and brought them to
America on his return. He says: "By these dispatches I saw further into
the stupidity of the English cabinet than I otherwise could have done,
and I renewed my former design. But Colonel Laurens was so unwilling to
return alone, more especially as, among other matters, he had a charge
of upward of two hundred thousand pounds sterling money, that I gave in
to his wishes, and finally gave up my plan. But I am now certain that,
if I could have executed it, it would not have been altogether
unsuccessful."--Note, Rights of Man, part ii. Nor is this all. "When
Napoleon meditated a descent upon England by means of gunboats, he
secured the services of Thomas Paine to establish, after the conquest, a
more popular government."--New Am. Cyc., Art. Thomas Paine. From all
that I can gather, Mr. Paine was himself the author of this "plan of
Napoleon's."
COMMON SENSE.
Junius is heard no more in England. The fame of this unknown author has
gone round the world. A score of volumes have been written to prove his
identity with a score of names. But all that has been said is wild with
conjecture, and arguments have only been built upon "_rumor_," and
"_facts_" drawn from the imagination. A scientific criticism has never
been attempted. Truth has been insulted by the imagination in its wild
ramblings, and writers have contented themselves with theory and fancy,
"to pile up reluctant quarto upon solid folio, as if their labors,
because they are gigantic, could contend with truth and Heaven." But
while the king and his cabinet are setting traps, and hunting up and
down the whole realm for this "mighty boar of the forest," in fear that
he will again plunge at the king, or tear the ermine of Lord Mansfield,
Thomas Paine, just landed upon the shores of America, hurls back a shaft
at royalty which transfixes it to the wall of its castle. This was
_Common Sense_. A reaction had taken place in England, and the people of
America were also affected thereby. Reconciliation was the cry,
independence scarcely lisped, and, when lisped, people "startled at the
novelty of it." "In this state of political suspense," says Mr. Paine,
"the pamphlet of Common Sense made its appearance, and the success it
met with does not become me to mention. Dr. Franklin, Mr. Samuel, and
John Adams were severally spoken of as the supposed author. I had not,
at that time, the pleasure either of personally knowing or being known
to the two last gentlemen. The favor of Dr. Franklin's friendship I
possessed in England, and my introduction to this part of the world was
through his patronage.... In October, 1775, Dr. Franklin proposed giving
me such materials as were in his hands toward completing a history of
the present transactions, and seemed desirous of having the first volume
out the next spring. I had then formed the outlines of Common Sense and
finished nearly the first part; and, as I supposed the doctor's design
in getting out a history was to open the new year with a new system, I
expected to surprise him with a production on that subject much earlier
than he thought of, and, without informing him what I was doing, got it
ready for the press as fast as I conveniently could, and sent him the
first pamphlet that was printed off."--Note, Crisis, iii.
Opening the new year with a new system is emphatically what Junius also
did, and it is most remarkable that the appearance of Junius' first
Letter had, at first, the same effect in England that Common Sense had
in America. Both came like thunderbolts. "On January 10, 1776, when 'a
reconciliation with the mother country was the wish of almost every
American,' a pamphlet called Common Sense, advocating the establishment
of a republic of free and independent states, 'burst upon the world'--in
the language of Dr. Rush--'with an effect which has rarely been produced
by types and paper in any age or country.' It was immediately denounced
as 'one of the most artful, insidious, and pernicious of pamphlets!'
John Dickinson, a staunch supporter of the American cause, and author of
the 'Farmers' Letters,' opposed the idea of independence in a speech as
a member of the Continental Congress. The author of 'Plain Truth,' one
of the _many replies_ to Common Sense, thought that 'volumes were
insufficient to describe the horror, misery, and desolation awaiting the
people at large in the siren form of American independence.' Dr. William
Smith, provost of the University of Pennsylvania, said, in his 'Cato's
Letters,' published in March, 1776: 'Nor have many weeks yet elapsed
since the first open proposition for independence was published to the
world; it certainly has no countenance from congress, and is only the
idol of those who wish to subvert all order among us, and rise on the
ruins of their country.'"--Art. Thomas Paine, New Am. Cyc.
This was the first effort in America toward revolution. It was a bold
hand, moved by a daring heart, that wrote Common Sense. In style and
language, in argument and sentiment, in spirit and character, it is the
finest political document ever produced in the English language. The
object for which Junius and Common Sense were written I have shown to be
the same, namely: _revolution_, and that the base of operation has only
been changed. It is still an attack upon king, lords, and commons, and a
defense of the people. I now go to show that Common Sense is a concise
reproduction of Junius, in sentiment, style, and method of
argumentation. But I will first call to the reader's mind a sentence
from Junius in answer to the assertion of Dr. Smith just quoted, that
Common Sense was "the first open proposition for independence." On the
contrary, the first open statement of Junius in regard to the colonies,
addressed to the king six years before this, is as follows: "_Looking
forward to independence_, they might possibly receive you for their
king; but, if you ever retire to America, be assured they will give you
such a covenant to digest as the presbytery of Scotland would have been
ashamed to offer to Charles the Second. They left their native land in
search of freedom, and found it in a desert. Divided as they are into a
thousand forms of policy and religion, there is one point in which they
all agree--they equally detest the pageantry of a king, and the
supercilious hypocrisy of a bishop."
I have now only to remark: when Thomas Paine came to America, at least
when he wrote Common Sense, he understood the American people and what
they wanted better than they did themselves; _and so did Junius_.
I now bring Common Sense and Junius together to show parallels of idea,
method, and style.
COMMON SENSE was addressed to the inhabitants of
America, the Introduction of which is as follows:
"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following
pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to
procure them general favor; a long habit of not
thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being right, and raises, at first, a
formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the
tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts
than Reason."
{71}JUNIUS was dedicated to the English nation;
portions of the Dedication are as follows:
"I dedicate to you a collection of letters
written _by one of yourselves_, for the common
benefit of us all. They would never have grown to
this size without your continued encouragement and
applause. To me they originally owe nothing but a
healthy, sanguine constitution. Under your care
they have thriven; to you they are indebted for
whatever strength or beauty they possess."
"A long and violent abuse of power is generally
the means of calling the right of it in question
(and in matters, too, which might never have been
thought of had not the sufferers been aggravated
into the inquiry), and as the king of England hath
undertaken, in his _own right_, to support the
parliament in what he calls _theirs_, and as the
good people of this country are grievously
oppressed by the combination, they have an
undoubted privilege to inquire into the
pretensions of both, and equally to reject the
usurpations of either.
"In the following sheets the author hath
studiously avoided every thing which is personal
among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to
individuals make no part thereof. The wise and the
worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and
those whose sentiments are injudicious or
unfriendly will cease of themselves, unless too
much pains is bestowed upon their conversion."
"When kings and ministers are forgotten, when the
force and direction of personal satire is no
longer understood, and when measures are only felt
in their remotest consequences, this book will, I
believe, be found to contain principles worthy to
be transmitted to posterity. When you leave the
unimpaired, hereditary freehold to your children,
you do but half your duty. Both liberty and
property are precarious, unless the possessors
have sense and spirit enough to defend them.
"Be assured that the laws which protect us in
our civil rights, grow out of the constitution,
and they must fall or flourish with it. This is
not the cause of faction or of party, or of any
individual, but the common interest of every man
in Britain. Although the king should continue to
support his present system of government, the
period is not very distant at which you will have
the means of redress in your own power; it may be
nearer, perhaps, than any of us expect; and I
would warn you to be prepared for it...."
"The cause of America is, in a great measure, the
cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have and
will arise, which are not local, but universal,
and through which the principles of all lovers of
mankind are affected, and in the event of which,
their affections are interested. The laying a
country desolate with fire and sword, declaring
war against the natural rights of mankind, and
extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of
the earth, is the concern of every man to whom
nature hath given the power of feeling; of which
class, regardless of party censure, is THE
AUTHOR."
"You can not but conclude, without the
possibility of a doubt, that long parliaments are
the foundation of the undue influence of the
crown. This influence answers every purpose of
arbitrary power to the crown.... It promises every
gratification to avarice and ambition, and secures
impunity.... You are roused at last to a sense of
your danger; the remedy will soon be in your
power. If Junius lives you shall often be reminded
of it. If, when the opportunity presents itself,
you neglect to do your duty to yourselves and to
posterity, to God and to your country, I shall
have one consolation left in common with the
meanest and basest of mankind: civil liberty may
still last the life of JUNIUS."
I would call the attention of the reader to the manner in which they
close: to the _cause_ of which they speak: to the object of their
labors: to the fact that they stand above party or faction: to the
expression of Junius, "written by one of yourselves:" to the declaration
that if he lives he will often remind the English people of the danger
they are in and of the remedy: to the fact that Mr. Paine here does it,
and continues to do it ever after while he lives: in short, I would call
the attention of the reader to the perfect similarity in style, object,
and sentiment, save in this--the one was the requiem of Freedom in
England, the other, her natal song in America.
As I have called attention to the style, I would caution the reader not
to be betrayed by the word "hath" of Mr. Paine. It by no means affects
the style. It was doubtless used or not used at first as a blind by Mr.
Paine; for he sometimes used it and sometimes did not. A few years later
in life it is abandoned altogether, and Junius occasionally lets it
slip. See Let. 37. And also the word "doth."--Note, Let. 41.
The following gives a distinction between society and government, the
failure of human conscience, and the necessary surrender of human
liberty:
_Common Sense._
"Society in every state is a blessing, but
government even in its best state is but a
necessary evil. In its worst state, an intolerable
one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same
miseries by a government which we might expect in
a country without government, our calamity is
heightened by reflecting, that we furnish the
means by which we suffer. Government, like dress,
is the badge of lost innocence. The palaces of
kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of
paradise, for were the impulses of _conscience_
clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would
need no other law-giver; but that not being the
case, he finds it _necessary_ to surrender up a
part of his property to furnish means for the
protection of the rest; and this he is induced to
do by the same prudence which in every other case
advises him out of two evils to choose the least."
_Junius._
"It is not in the nature of human society that any
form of government in such circumstances can long
be preserved."--Let. 35.
"The multitude in all countries are patient to a
certain point. Ill usage may rouse their
indignation and hurry them into excesses, but the
original fault is in government.
"The ruin or prosperity of a state depends so much
upon the administration of its government, that to
be acquainted with the merit of a ministry, we
need only observe the condition of the
people."--Let. 1.
"If _conscience_ plays the tyrant it would be
greatly for the benefit of the world that she were
more arbitrary and far less placable than some men
find her."--Let. 27.
"I lament the unhappy _necessity_ whenever it
arises of providing for the safety of the state by
a temporary invasion of the personal liberty of
the subject."--Let. 58.
"Junius feels and acknowledges the evil in the
most express terms, and will show himself ready to
concur in any rational plan that may provide for
the liberty of the individual without hazarding
the safety of the community."--Let. 63.
Mr. Paine now proceeds to form a government upon an ideal plan, and show
the origin of those first principles which would operate in the first
peopling of a country. "But as nothing but heaven is impregnable to
vice," the natural restraints of society will not be sufficient to check
it; this will necessitate the establishment of a government. At first,
the whole colony may deliberate, and in the first parliament every man
will have a seat. But as the colony increases this can not be done,
because inconvenience prohibits it. He now observes:
_Common Sense._
"This will point out the convenience of their
consenting to leave the legislative part to be
managed by a select number chosen from the whole
body, who are supposed to have the same interests
at stake which those have who appointed them, and
who will act in the same manner as the whole body
would were they present. If the colony continue
increasing, it will become necessary to augment
the number of representatives; and that the
interest of every part of the colony may be
attended to, it will be found best to divide the
whole into convenient parts, each part sending its
proper number; and that the _elected_ might never
form to themselves an interest separate from the
_electors_, prudence will point out the propriety
of having elections often; because, as the
_elected_ might by that means return and mix again
with the general body of the _electors_, in a few
months their fidelity to the public will be
secured by the prudent reflection of making a rod
for themselves. And as this frequent interchange
will establish a common interest with every part
of the community, they will mutually and naturally
support each other, and on this (not on the
unmeaning name of king) depends the _strength of
government and the happiness of the governed_."
_Junius._
"The House of Commons are only interpreters whose
duty it is to convey the sense of the people
faithfully to the crown; if the interpretation be
false or imperfect, the constituent powers are
called to deliver their own sentiments. Their
speech is rude but intelligible; their gestures
fierce but full of explanation. Perplexed with
sophistries, their honest eloquence rises into
action."--Let. 38.
"I am convinced that if shortening the duration of
parliaments (which, in effect, is keeping the
representative under the rod of the constituent)
be not made the basis of our new parliamentary
jurisprudence, other checks or improvements
signify nothing. On the contrary, if this be made
the foundation, other measures may come in aid,
and, as auxiliaries, be of considerable advantage.
If we are sincere in the political creed we
profess, there are many things can not be done by
king, lords and commons."--Let. 68.
"Here, then, is the origin and rise of government;
viz, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of
moral virtue to govern the world; here, too, is
the design and end of government, viz: freedom and
security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with
show, or our ears deceived by sound; however
prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken
our understanding, the simple voice of nature and
reason will say, it is right."
"The free election of our representatives in
parliament comprehends, because it is the source
and security of every right and privilege of the
English nation. The ministry have realized the
compendious ideas of Caligula. They know that the
liberty, the laws, and property of an Englishman,
have in truth but one neck, and that to violate
the freedom of election strikes deeply at them
all."--Let. 39.
"Does the law of parliament, which we are often
told is the law of the land; does the right of
every subject of the realm, depend upon an
arbitrary, capricious vote of one branch of the
legislature? The voice of truth and reason must
be silent."--Let. 20.
In the above the sentiment is not only the same, but the same metaphors
are used. As a "rod" for the representative, and the "voice of reason."
In the following the same metaphor also is used, but with a change in
the application.
_Common Sense._
"But the constitution of England is so exceedingly
complex, that the nation may suffer for years
together without being able to discover in which
part the fault lies; some will say in one, some in
another, and every political _physician_ will
advise a different medicine."
_Junius._
"After a rapid succession of changes, we are
reduced to that state which hardly any change can
mend. It is not the disorder, but the _physician_:
it is not a casual concurrence of calamitous
circumstances; it is the pernicious hand of
government which alone can make a whole people
desperate."--Let. 1.
In the above, Junius is speaking, in his first Letter, with all the
prejudices of an Englishman in favor of the constitution. But this soon
wears off, and in his closing Letter he speaks as boldly as COMMON
SENSE.
_Common Sense._
"I know it is difficult to get over local or long
standing prejudices, yet if we will suffer
ourselves to examine the component parts of the
English constitution, we will find them to be the
base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded
with some new republican materials.
"_First_: The remains of monarchical tyranny in
the person of the king.
"_Secondly_: The remains of aristocratical tyranny
in the persons of the peers.
"_Thirdly_: The new republican materials in the
persons of the commons, on whose virtue depends
the freedom of England."
_Junius._
"I confess, sir, that I felt the prejudices of my
education in favor of a House of Commons still
hanging about me.... The state of things is much
altered in this country since it was necessary to
protect our representatives against the direct
power of the crown. We have nothing to apprehend
from prerogative, but every thing from undue
influence."--Let. 44.
"The nearer any government approaches to a
republic, the less business there is for a king.
It is somewhat difficult, to find a proper name
for the government of England. Sir William
Meredith calls it a republic, but in its present
state it is unworthy of the name, because the
corrupt influence of the crown by having all the
places at its disposal, hath so effectually
swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue
of the House of Commons (the republican part in
the constitution), that the government of England
is nearly as monarchical as that of France or
Spain. Men fall out with names without
understanding them. For it is the republican and
not the monarchical part of the constitution of
England, which Englishmen glory in, viz: the
liberty of choosing a House of Commons from out
their own body; and it is easy to see, that when
republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is
the constitution of England sickly, but because
monarchy hath poisoned the republic, the crown
hath engrossed the commons."
See how Junius now bows to monarchy in order to
strike it:
"I can more readily admire the liberal spirit and
integrity, than the sound judgment of any man who
prefers a republican form of government in this or
any other empire of equal extent, to a monarchy so
qualified and limited as ours. I am convinced that
neither is it in theory the wisest system of
government, nor practicable in this country. Yet,
though I hope the English constitution will
forever preserve its original monarchical form, I
would have the manners of the people purely and
strictly republican. I do not mean the licentious
spirit of anarchy and riot; I mean a general
attachment to the common weal, distinct from any
partial attachment to persons or families; an
implicit submission to the laws only; and an
affection to the magistrate proportioned to the
integrity and wisdom with which he distributes
justice to the people, and administers their
affairs. The present habit of our political body
appears to me the very reverse of what it ought to
be. The form of the constitution leans rather more
than enough to the popular branch; while in effect
the manners of the people (of those at least who
are likely to take the lead in the country)
incline too generally to a dependence upon the
crown. The real friends of arbitrary power combine
the facts, and are not inconsistent with their
principles, when they strenuously support the
unwarrantable privileges assumed by the House of
Commons. In these circumstances it were much to be
desired that we had many such men as Mr. Sawbridge
to represent us in parliament. I speak from common
report and opinion only, when I impute to him a
speculative predilection in favor of a republic.
In the personal conduct and manners of the man I
can not be mistaken. He has shown himself
possessed of that republican firmness which the
times require, and by which an English gentleman
may be as usefully and as honorably distinguished
as any citizen of ancient Rome, of Athens, or
Lacedemon."--Let. 58.
I would remark on the above passage from Junius, that this is one of his
finest rhetorical efforts, and it is well worthy of a moment's pause,
to study its plan and probable effect on the English mind. This was
written near the close of his literary campaign. The reaction had set
in, and he was stemming the tide of public opinion. He wishes to bring
the people up to his republican notions, and to rouse them to action. He
begins by _admiring the liberal spirit and integrity_ of the man, but
reflects on his judgment who prefers a republic to a monarchy so
_qualified and limited_ in a country of _that size_. He limits monarchy
to a small country. The reader will mark how guarded he is here. He is
fully aware of the prejudices of the people in favor of monarchy, and
doubtless he spoke his own sentiments at the time, qualified as they
were. Mr. Paine afterward spoke of "setting up the Duke of Gloucester,
deposing the king, and bringing the ministers to trial." Junius has now
prepared the public ear for an attentive and respectful hearing; he has
bowed to monarchy, and touched the heart of his audience. He now
introduces the principles of a republic, which produce a spirit devoid
of anarchy and riot, but one attached to the common weal and submissive
to the laws only. He now tenderly chides the people for their dependence
upon the crown, _especially the leaders_. He then advances to a charge
of inconsistency, and shows the advantage the friends of arbitrary power
take of it. He now supports himself by _authority_ in a eulogy on Mr.
Sawbridge, of whom he says: "He has shown himself possessed of that
republican firmness which the times require." He at last caps the climax
with an array of republics, and a hint that an English gentleman would
be "honorably distinguished" if he would come forward and play the part
of Brutus. The whole paragraph is deeply planned and finely wrought out,
and would fall with stunning weight upon the mind of the English nation.
But let us proceed. Mr. Paine asked, in the last sentence quoted above
in the parallel column: "Why is the constitution of England sickly?"
etc. He also further says: "An inquiry into the _constitutional errors_
in the English form of government is at this time highly necessary, for,
as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others while
we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither
are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by an
obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a prostitute is
unfit to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favor of a
rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good
one."--Common Sense, Part I.
Englishmen considered rotten boroughs the only rotten part of the
constitution, but Common Sense and Junius both considered that the
disease had extended from the extremities to the heart. Junius says:
"As to cutting away the rotten boroughs, I am as much offended as
any man at seeing so many of them under the direct influence of
the crown, or at the disposal of private persons. Yet, I own I
have both doubts and apprehensions in regard to the remedy you
propose.... When all your instruments of amputation are prepared,
when the unhappy patient lies bound at your feet, without the
possibility of resistance, by what infallible rule will you direct
the operation? When you propose to cut away the rotten parts, _can
you tell us what parts are perfectly sound_? Are there any
certain limits, in fact or theory, to inform you at what point you
must stop--at what point the mortification ends? To a man [Mr.
Wilkes] so capable of observation and reflection as you are, it is
unnecessary to say all that might be said upon the subject.
Besides that, I approve highly of Lord Chatham's idea of infusing
a portion of new health into the constitution, to enable it to
bear its infirmities--a brilliant expression, and full of
intrinsic wisdom."--Last Letter of Junius.
_Common Sense._
"To say that the constitution of England is a
union of three powers, reciprocally checking each
other, is farcical; either the words have no
meaning, or they are flat contradictions. To say
that the commons is a check upon the king
presupposes two things:
_"First._--That the king is not to be trusted
without being looked after; or, in other words,
that a thirst for absolute power is the natural
_disease_ of monarchy.
_"Secondly._--That the commons, by being appointed
for that purpose, are either wiser, or more worthy
of confidence than the crown."
_Junius._
"The three branches of the legislature seem to
treat their separate rights and interests as the
Roman triumvirs did their friends--they
reciprocally sacrifice them to the animosities of
each other, and establish a detestable union among
themselves upon the ruin of the laws and the
liberty of the commonwealth."--Let. 39.
"There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the
composition of monarchy--it first excludes a man
from the means of information, yet empowers him to
act in cases where the highest judgment is
required. The state of a king shuts him from the
world, yet the business of a king requires him to
know it thoroughly; wherefore, the different
parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each
other, prove the whole character to be absurd and
useless."
In speaking of and to the king, he says:
"It has been the misfortune of your life, and
originally the cause of every reproach and
distress which has attended your government, that
you should never have been acquainted with the
language of truth until you heard it in the
complaints of your people."--Let. 35.
"A faultless, insipid equality in his character is
neither capable of virtue or vice in the extreme,
but it secures his submission to those persons
whom he has been accustomed to respect, and makes
him a dangerous instrument of their ambition.
Secluded from the world, attached from his infancy
to one set of persons and one set of ideas, he can
neither open his heart to new connections, nor his
mind to better information."--Let. 39.
"That the crown is this overbearing part in the
English constitution, needs not to be mentioned;
and that it derives its whole consequence merely
from being the giver of _places and pensions_, is
self-evident. Wherefore, though we have been wise
enough to shut and lock a door against absolute
monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish
enough to put the crown in possession of the key.
"The prejudice of Englishmen in favor of their own
government by king, lords, and commons, arises as
much or more from national pride than reason.
Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than
in some other countries, but the will of the king
is as much the law of the land in Britain as in
France, with this difference: that, instead of
proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed
to the people under the formidable shape of an act
of parliament. For the fate of Charles the First
hath only made kings more subtle--not more just."
Of the king's influence on parliament, he says:
"It is arbitrary and notoriously under the
influence of the crown."--Let. 44.
"I beg you will convey to your gracious master my
humble congratulations upon the glorious success
of _peerages and pensions_, so lavishly
distributed as the rewards of Irish virtue."--Let.
66.
"That the sovereign of this country is not
amenable to any form of trial known to the laws,
is unquestionable; but exemption from punishment
is a singular privilege annexed to the royal
character, and no way excludes the possibility of
deserving it. How long and to what extent a king
of England may be protected by the forms, when he
violates the spirit of the constitution, deserves
to be considered. A mistake in this matter proved
fatal to Charles and his son."--Preface to Junius.
"Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and
prejudice in favor of modes and forms, the plain
truth is that _it is wholly owing to the
constitution of the people, and not the
constitution of the government_, that the crown is
not as oppressive in England as in Turkey."
"The consequences of this attack upon the
constitution are too plain and palpable not to
alarm the dullest apprehension. I trust you will
find that the people of England are neither
deficient in spirit or understanding, though you
have treated them as if they had neither sense to
feel, nor spirit to resent. We have reason to
thank God and our ancestors that there never yet
was a minister in this country who could stand the
issue of such a conflict, and, with every
prejudice in favor of your intentions, I see no
such abilities in your grace as should enable you
to succeed in an enterprise in which the ablest
and basest of your predecessors have found their
destruction.... Never hope that the freeholders
will make a tame surrender of their rights, or
that an English army will join with you in
overturning the liberties of their country."--Let.
11.
I will now present their doctrine of _equal rights_:
_Common Sense._
"Mankind being originally equals in the order of
creation, the equality could not be destroyed by
some subsequent circumstance....
"As the exalting one man so greatly above the
rest, can not be justified on the equal rights of
nature...."
_Junius._
"In the rights of freedom we are all equal....
"The least considerable man among us has an
interest equal to the proudest nobleman."--Let.
37.
"When the first original right of the people, from
which all laws derive their authority," etc.--Let.
30.
"Those sacred original rights which belonged to
them before they were soldiers."--Let. 11.
"For all men being originally equals, no one by
birth could have a right to set up his own family
in perpetual preference to all others forever, and
though himself might deserve some decent degree of
honors of his cotemporaries, yet his descendants
might be far too unworthy to inherit them. One of
the strongest _natural_ proofs of the folly of
hereditary right in kings, is, that nature
disproves it, otherwise she would not so
frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind
an ass for a lion."
"Those original rights of your subjects, on which
all their civil and political liberties depend....
"If the English people should no longer confine
their resentment to a submissive representation of
their wrongs; if, following the glorious example
of their ancestors, they should no longer appeal
to the creature of the constitution, but to that
high Being who gave them the rights of humanity,
whose gifts it were sacrilege to surrender; let me
ask you, sir, upon what part of your subjects
would you rely for assistance?"--Address to the
king, Let. 35.
While I am upon the subject of king, I will present their views in this
place. And I would call attention to the severity of the language:
_Common Sense._
"In England, a king hath little more to do than to
make war and give away places, which, in plain
terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it
together by the ears. A pretty business, indeed,
for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand
sterling a year for, and worshiped into the
bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to
society and in the sight of God than all the
crowned ruffians that ever lived.
"But where, say some, is the king of America? I'll
tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not
make havoc of mankind, like the royal brute of
Britain."
_Junius._
"For my own part, far from thinking that the king
can do no wrong; far from suffering myself to be
deterred or imposed upon by the language of forms;
if it were my misfortune to live under the
inauspicious reign of a prince, whose whole life
was employed in one base, contemptible struggle
with the free spirit of his people, or in the
_detestable_ endeavor to corrupt their moral
principles, I would not scruple to declare to him:
'Sir, you alone are the author of the greatest
wrong to your subjects and to yourself.... Has not
the strength of the crown, whether influence or
prerogative, been uniformly exerted for eleven
years together, to support a narrow, pitiful
system of government, which defeats itself and
answers no one purpose of real power, profit, or
personal satisfaction to you?'"--Pref.
"The minister who, by secret corruption, invades
the freedom of elections, and the ruffian [meaning
the king] who, by open violence, destroys that
freedom, are embarked in the same bottom."--Let.
8.
"When Junius observes that kings are ready enough
to follow such advice, he does not mean to
insinuate that, if the advice of Parliament were
good, the king would be so ready to follow
it."--Let. 45.
In commenting on the sentence spoken of the king,
"_by whose_ NOD ALONE _they were permitted to do
anything_," he says: "Here is idolatry even
without a mask; and he who can calmly hear and
digest such doctrine, hath forfeited his claim to
rationality; is an apostate from the order of
manhood, and ought to be considered as one who
hath not only given up the proper dignity of man,
but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and
contemptibly crawls through the world like a worm.
However, it matters very little now what the king
of England either says or does; he hath wickedly
broken through every moral and human obligation,
trampled nature and conscience under his feet;
and, by a steady and unconstitutional spirit of
insolence and cruelty, procured for himself an
universal hatred."
"There is surely something singularly benevolent
in the character of our sovereign. From the moment
he ascended the throne, there is no crime of which
human nature is capable (and I call upon the
recorder to witness it) that has not appeared
venial in his sight."--Let. 48.
"I know that man [the king] much better than any
of you. _Nature_ intended him only for a good
humored fool. A systematical education, with long
practice, has made him a consummate hypocrite....
What would have been the triumph of that odious
hypocrite and his minions if Wilkes had been
defeated? It was not your fault, reverend sir,
that he did not enjoy it completely."--Let. 51, to
Rev. Mr. Horne.
I shall now give two passages from another portion of Mr. Paine's work
to parallel with the last two of Junius on the king:
"Good heavens! what volumes of thanks does America
owe to Britain! What infinite obligation to the
tool that fills with paradoxical vacancy the
throne!"--Crisis, iii.
"The connection between vice and meanness is a fit
subject for satire, but when the satire is a fact
it cuts with the irresistible power of a diamond.
If a Quaker, in defense of his just rights, his
property, and the chastity of his house, takes up
a musket he is expelled the meeting; but the
present king of England, who seduced and took into
keeping a sister of their society, is reverenced
and supported by repeated testimonies, while the
friendly noodle from whom she was taken, and who
is now in this city, continues a drudge in the
service of his rival, as if proud of being
cuckolded by a creature called a king."--Crisis,
iii.
"Though the Kennedies were convicted of a most
deliberate and atrocious murder, they still had a
claim to the royal mercy. They were saved by the
chastity of their connections. They had a sister;
yet it was not her beauty, but the pliancy of her
virtue, that recommended her to the king.
"The holy author of our religion was seen in the
company of sinners; but it was his gracious
purpose to convert them from their sins. Another
man who, in the ceremonies of our faith, might
give lessons to the great enemy of it, upon
different principles, keeps much the same company.
He advertises for patients, collects all the
diseases of the heart, and turns a royal palace
into an hospital for incurables. A man of honor
has no ticket of admission at St. James'. They
receive him like a virgin at the Magdalen's--'Go
thou and do likewise.'"--Let. 67, to Lord
Mansfield.
The above will explain a passage in Junius--Let.
56--which is as follows: "You must confess that
even Charles the Second would have blushed at that
open encouragement, at those eager, meretricious
caresses, with which every species of private vice
and public prostitution is received at St.
James'."
I will now make a few remarks upon COMMON SENSE. I have introduced a few
extracts to show its spirit, scope, and object; and the opinions,
principles, language, and style of Mr. Paine. I have also thrown by the
side of them the similar characteristics of Junius, but this is not all.
COMMON SENSE was to America what _Junius_ would have been to England if
the same success had attended it. There is a _plan_ in COMMON SENSE
similar to that of Junius. It opens the new year with a new policy; it
begins by a contrast between society and government; it attacks the
government and defends the original rights of the people; it assaults
the king and his minions; it defends republicanism against royalty; it
calls on the people to rebel against the tyrant, to take up arms in
their defense, and to establish government upon the natural and original
rights of the people. If one will study the two works he will find not
only the general plan the same, but even in detail they strikingly
correspond; showing the same head to plan, and the same hand to execute.
There is the same language, the same figures of speech, the same wit,
the same method of argumentation, the same withering satire, the same
appeals to Heaven, and the same bold, proud, unconquerable spirit, in
the one as in the other.
If Mr. Paine was Junius, these things would naturally be expected. And
it would be expected, also, that having failed to produce the desired
effect in England, and all further effort there being at an end, that
if Junius lived he would change his base of operations if a favorable
opportunity offered, and strike once more for the liberties of the
people. Thus the natural order of things leads us to an irresistible
conclusion. But in order not to be too hasty we ought to ask: Is there
not _one_ fact in the whole life and character of Mr. Paine incompatible
with Junius? When it is found I will surrender the argument. But let us
proceed.
Nature is prodigal of varieties. No two individuals are alike, either in
physical form or mental features. Great differences may be found even
among those most resembling each other, but when we find a man prominent
among his fellow-kind, it is because of marked characteristics in which
he greatly differs from the rest. These characteristics are expressed in
action. A record of these actions is the history of men. Faust gives us
movable type, and Watt the steam-engine. Newton asks nature to reveal
her mode of operation in the movement of matter. Bacon asks her for her
method. Buckle inquires after the science of history. Napoleon was a
magazine of war. And thus great minds reveal themselves in their own
way; and the more striking and peculiar the characteristic, the more
easily can we distinguish and describe the person. Mr. Paine was a
literary adventurer. And unlike adventurers in conquest or discovery, he
left the record of his course as he went along. His was not a path in
the sea, nor foot-prints in the sand, but a work like that of Euclid or
Laplace, carved out of thought; he called out of chaos a new world of
politics; he fought great battles and won victories with the pen. To
know the man, then, we must examine his writings. To this end,
therefore, I call the reader's attention to his style.
STYLE.
I will first make some concise remarks upon this subject, to aid us in
comparing Junius with Mr. Paine; because I propose to show that the
style of the one is the style of the other.
Style, by most authors, is treated under the following heads:
_Perspicuity_, _Vivacity_, and _Beauty_. Perspicuity, I define, the
clear and true expression of our thoughts in the fewest words. Vivacity
is the energy or life of expression; it attracts the attention, and
excites the imagination. It takes the will by storm and produces
conviction. Combined with perspicuity it becomes eloquence. Beauty is
the harmony and smoothness of of expression, and is often made
synonymous with _elegance_.
The first requisite in style is perspicuity. It is a prevalent notion
among the vulgar that clearness of expression leads to dryness and
dullness in speaking or writing, owing to the plain garb in which ideas
are clothed. But the fact is, the very reverse of this is true, and as
the legitimate result.
Words are said to be the signs of ideas, or symbols of thought. But
words _spoken_ is thought passing in the air; they are ideas in
invisible vibrations, and a sound can neither be a sign nor a symbol.
But words written are symbols of thought. Language addresses both the
ear and the eye. The true end and aim of language is to make others feel
the full force of an idea as it is felt by the speaker. Language must
therefore be forever imperfect, and this from the nature of things, or
at least till ideas can be silently conveyed upon the waves of some
subtle nerve force. Ideas flit from the mind with the rapidity of
lightning. To the inward beholder truth becomes visible at times
instantaneously. He sees it, he feels it; it fills him with emotions; it
struggles for utterance. Truth writhes to get free and become
universally, instead of particularly, known and felt. It may be and is
felt instantaneously, yet it can not be expressed in words for hours,
and perhaps never: certainly never as it should be. Truth rests in the
mind, or flutters there in ideal beauty. It requires an artist
transcending earthly perfection to breathe it to the ear or throw it out
to the eye on canvas. The tongue and hand both fail, the sounds are
discordant, and the lines are broken. In the one instance we have a
jumble of sounds, and in the other a daub for a picture.
It becomes apparent at once, the more words we use to express thought,
the more it is cumbered with technicalities and idiomatic phrases, just
so much more gross, and feeble, and uninviting it becomes, because
robbed of its ideal beauty. But, on the contrary, if a word or a look or
a touch could express it, its beauty, and its power, and its worth would
not be thus blemished. Byron would have spoken that word were it
lightning. Hence arises the interest and charm in beholding the picture
of an artist, where so much is revealed at a glance; for it is thought
which is expressed there. Hence, also, it becomes evident that far more
can be expressed in a figure of speech, quickly and boldly put, than
could be otherwise presented in hours or days. "A single hieroglyphic
character," says Champoleon le June, "would probably convey more to the
mind of an ancient Egyptian than a quarto page would to a European."
Perspicuity, therefore, is not necessarily devoid of energy or elegance,
in fact the only means to secure a clear and concise style is to use the
trope--especially in the two forms of metaphor and comparison: observing
always that long and labored figures of speech are generally ambiguous,
and always have a bad effect. Their beauty, and worth, and power consist
in the brevity and clearness with which they are expressed. "The thought
expressed in a single line by Chaucer," says Lord Kames, "gives more
luster to a young beauty, than the whole of his much labored poem,
"Up rose the sun, and up rose Emilie."
Perspicuity, then, we would consider the very soul of vivacity, and
vivacity the soul of eloquence.
The elegance or beauty of expression is of far less consequence, and
must often be sacrificed to the very nature of ideas. It can not be said
that all ideas are beautiful. There are uncomely and hideous things on
earth; there are disagreeable and hateful subjects to be spoken of, and
there are painful feelings to be expressed. Language would fail to
subserve the end for which it exists, did it not correspond to the
sources of thought and the objects to be described; otherwise it would
not be language. To be elegant, therefore, at all times, in speaking or
writing, involves an absurdity, inasmuch as only a part of our ideas
could be expressed were this the case. The simple narration of facts
enlightens; elegance soothes and pleases; but vivacity moves to action.
It is the duty of the writer to make his style and language correspond
with his subject.
Keeping the foregoing principles in view, the reader may apply such
terms to the piece he reads, or the discourse he hears, as may be most
fitting. It is thus we speak of concise, diffuse, bold, feeble, nervous,
plain, neat, dry, or flowery styles. A full sentence or _period_, as it
is called, must therefore have: 1. _Precision_; that is, it must be
clear and not ambiguous: 2. _Unity_; that is, it must not have crowded
into it different subjects: 3. _Strength_; that is, all unnecessary
words must be thrown away, and it must be built with such mechanical
skill as will render it the most forcible to the mind: and, 4.
_Harmony_; that is, it must sound with the sense.
For the purpose of an argument, it is immaterial to me whether I have
cause to praise or censure the style of Mr. Paine. It is a comparison of
the known with the unknown, in which I am about to engage, and it is the
_likeness_, not the merits, which I wish to bring out. A good or a bad
style would not affect the similarity were either produced by the same
hand. But it is a fact worthy of remark, as I am passing, that a bad
style in writing or speaking, has never produced any marked effect upon
the world. It is the nature of great minds to be possessed of clear
ideas, and to such minds nature never withholds the gift of purity of
diction.
The style of Mr. Paine is as peculiar as the great mind that produced
it, and I will describe it to be: _strong, bold, clear, and harmonious_.
The construction of any of his pieces, is like the building of a fine
edifice. He never begins without plan and specifications. He builds it
in the ideal before he puts it on paper. The reader finds a foundation
fit and substantial in the first paragraph, often in the first sentence.
Upon this he finds a superstructure to correspond, which in size and
proportions, is neat and artistic, constructed with each separate
material of the best kind, and in its proper place, never left without
cornice and entablature, so that when taken all together it is most
pleasing and useful. He never leaves a period like a broken column, yet
a careless vine sometimes winds around it, to attract the mind from its
stately proportions, and we have lost the argument in the beauty of the
figure. But the effect is momentary. He soon brings us back to the
practical and the real. And it is his peculiar beauty, that he does not
impose ideas upon us which his language can not convey to the commonest
understanding.
Mr. Jefferson says of his style: "No writer has exceeded Paine in
familiarity of style, in perspicuity of expression, happiness of
elucidation, and in simple and unassuming language."
Style presents the _law_, as well as the image, of the writers' mind; in
other words, style gives us the true portrait and habits of the mind,
for the mind can by no means counterfeit itself. I will therefore
proceed to an analysis and comparison of Mr. Paine's style with that of
Junius; and, first, of the sentence, or period. The different members
are of the same length, hence the rythm or harmony. Take the following
examples, and I will place bars between the different members to aid the
eye:
"The style and language you have adopted are, I confess, | not ill
suited to the elegance of your own manners, | or to the dignity of the
cause you have undertaken. | Every common dauber writes rascal and
villain under his pictures, | because the pictures themselves have
neither character nor resemblance. | But the works of a master require
no index; | his features and coloring are taken from nature; | the
impression is immediate and uniform; | nor is it possible to mistake the
characters, | whether they represent the treachery of a minister, | or
the abused simplicity of a king." |
"Were I disposed to paint a contrast, | I could easily set off what you
have done in the present case | against what you would have done in
_that_ case, | and by justly opposing them, | conclude a picture that
would make you blush. | But as, when any of the prouder passions are
hurt, | it is much better philosophy | to let a man slip into a good
temper | than to attack him in a bad one-- | for that reason, therefore,
I only state the case, | and leave you to reflect upon it." |
"Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, | can ye restore to us
the time that is past? | Can ye give to prostitution its former
innocence? | Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. | The last
cord now is broken-- | the people of England are presenting addresses
against us. | There are injuries which nature can not forgive-- | she
would cease to be nature if she did. | As well can the lover forgive the
ravisher of his mistress, | as the continent forgive the murders of
Britain." |
"The question is not of what metal your instruments are made, | but
whether they are adapted to the work you have in hand. | Will they grant
you common halls when it shall be necessary? | Will they go up with
remonstrances to the king? | Have they firmness enough to meet the fury
of a venal House of Commons? | Have they fortitude enough not to shrink
at imprisonment? | Have they spirit enough to hazard their lives and
fortunes in a contest, | if it should be necessary, with a prostituted
legislature? | If these questions can fairly be answered in the
affirmative, your choice is made. | Forgive this passionate language. |
I am unable to correct it. | The subject comes home to us all. | It is
the language of my heart." |
The above is sufficient. The first and last paragraphs are from Junius,
the other two from Paine. The last two paragraphs are passionate, the
first two calm but energetic. Throughout the whole, nature is at
work--there is nothing artificial. But it was the melody or rythm that I
wished to indicate to the reader. This is peculiar and common to both,
and itself can not be imitated. If a writer ever succeeds in reproducing
this style, it will be from the nature of his own mind, and not from
imitation.
If the reader will now return to page 71, and compare the Dedication to
Junius with the Introduction to Common Sense, he will find in rythm a
striking parallel, because the subject is the same, and the mind of the
writer is performing the same work.
Grammatical accuracy is often sacrificed to conciseness, as in the
following:
_Paine._
"Many circumstances have and will arise which are
not local."--Introduc.
_Junius._
"If this be your meaning and opinion, you will act
consistently with _it_ in choosing Mr. Nash."--Let. 57.
Mr. Paine was bold enough to transcend the minor rules of grammar
whenever he found them cumbersome to his style. In this he is consistent
with Junius.
* * * * *
There is a majesty of manner, and a grandeur of style, which strike the
mind of the reader with great force. Take, for example, the following:
_Paine._
"It was not Newton's honor, neither could it be
his pride, that he was an Englishman, but that he
was a philosopher; the heavens had liberated him
from the prejudices of an island, and science had
expanded his soul as boundless as his
studies."--Crisis, viii.
_Junius._
"You have still an honorable part to act. The
affections of your subjects may still be
recovered; but, before you subdue their hearts,
you must gain a noble victory over your own.
Discard those little personal resentments which
have too long directed your public conduct. Pardon
this man the remainder of his punishment; and, if
resentment still prevails, make it what it should
have been long since--an act, not of mercy, but of
contempt. He will soon fall back into his natural
station, a silent senator, and hardly supporting
the weekly eloquence of a newspaper. The gentle
breath of peace would leave him on the surface
neglected and unremoved; it is only the tempest
that lifts him from his place.
"The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood
of his children will curse his cowardice who
shrinks back at a time when a little might have
saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the
man that can smile in trouble, that can gather
strength from distress, and grow brave by
reflection." ... Speaking of the principles of
war, he continues: "What signifies it to me
whether he who does it is a king or a common man;
my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be
done by an individual villain or an army of them?
... Let them call me rebel and welcome; I feel no
concern from it, but I should suffer the misery of
devils were I to make a whore of my soul by
swearing allegiance to one whose character is that
of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish
man! ... There are cases which can not be overdone
by language, and this is one."--Crisis, i.
"Without consulting your ministers, call
together your whole council. Let it appear to the
public that you can determine and act for
yourself. Come forward to your people. Lay aside
the wretched formalities of a king, and speak to
your subjects with the spirit of a man, and in the
language of a gentleman.... These sentiments, sir,
and the style they are conveyed in, may be
offensive, perhaps, because they are new to
you."--Let. 35.
In the following, diminutives are handled with telling effect:
_Paine._
"Indolence and inability have too large a share in
your composition ever to suffer you to be any
thing more than the hero of little villainies and
unfinished adventures."--To Lord Howe, Crisis, v.
"That a man whose soul is absorbed in the low
traffic of vulgar vice, is incapable of moving in
any superior region, is clearly shown in you by
the event of every campaign."--To Lord Howe,
Crisis, v.
"You may plan and execute little mischiefs, but
are they worth the expense they cost you, or will
such partial evils have any effect on the general
cause? Your expedition to Egg Harbor will be felt
at a distance like an attack upon a hen-roost, and
expose you in Europe with a sort of childish
frenzy."--Crisis, vi.
_Junius._
"About this time the courtiers talked of nothing
but a bill of pains and penalties against the lord
mayor and sheriffs, or impeachment at the least.
Little Mannikin Ellis told the king that if the
business were left to his management he would
engage to do wonders. It was thought very odd that
a business of so much importance should be
intrusted to the most contemptible little piece of
machinery in the whole kingdom. His honest zeal,
however, was disappointed. The minister took
fright, and at the very instant that little Ellis
was going to open, sent him an order to sit down.
All their magnanimous threats ended in a
ridiculous vote of censure, and a still more
ridiculous address to the king."--Note, Let. 38.
The reader will observe that the method also of ridicule is the same. A
hundred examples of this might be selected from both; and he has,
doubtless, already noticed the biting satire of both. The Letters of
Junius are among the finest specimens of satire in the English language,
and are only equaled by Mr. Paine's Letters to Lord Howe, and passages
in his Rights of Man to Mr. Burke. I will give a few extracts. It will
be remembered how Junius called the king not only a "ruffian," but said
"nature only intended him for a good humored fool," and that if he ever
retired to America he would get a severe covenant to digest from a
people who united in detesting the pageantry of a king and the
supercilious hypocrisy of a bishop. With this remembrance I will submit
the following piece of satire from Crisis, No. vi:
"Your rightful sovereign, as you call him, may do well enough for you,
who dare not inquire into the humble capacities of the man; but we, who
estimate persons and things by their real worth, can not suffer our
judgment to be so imposed upon; and unless it is your wish to see him
exposed, it ought to be your endeavor to keep him out of sight. The less
you have to say about him the better. We have done with him, and that
ought to be answer enough. You have been often told so. Strange! that
the answer must be so often repeated. You go a begging with your king as
with a brat, or with some unsalable commodity you are tired of; and
though every body tells you no, no, still you keep hawking him about.
But there is one that will have him in a little time, and as we have no
inclination to disappoint you of a customer, we bid nothing for him."
Many passages of similar severity could be collected. In fact, the two
Letters addressed to Lord Howe are not equaled in force or severity by
the most savage of Junius' productions. I now call attention to other
parallel peculiarities.
* * * * *
{103}The manner of threatening, commanding, and warning, is, the same:
_Paine._
"I hold up a warning to your senses, if you have
any left.... I call, not with the rancor of an
enemy, but the earnestness of a friend, on the
deluded people of England.... There is not a
nobleman's country seat but may be laid in ashes
by a single person."--Crisis, vi.
_Junius._
"The English nation must be roused and put upon
its guard.... The corruption of the legislative
body on this side, a military force on the other,
and then _farewell_ to England."--Let. 40.
"A change of the ministry in England may probably
bring your measures into question and your head to
the block."--To Lord Howe, Crisis, v.
"Sullen and severe without religion, profligate
without gayety, you live like Charles the Second,
without being an amiable companion, and, for aught
I know, may die as his father did, without the
reputation of a martyr."--Let. 12.
"Go home, sir, and endeavor to save the remains of
your ruined country by a just representation of
the madness or her measures. A few moments well
applied may yet preserve her from political
destruction."--Crisis, v.
"Return, my lord, before it be too late, to that
easy, insipid system which you first set out with.
Take back your mistress. Indulge the people.
Attend New Market. To be weak and inactive is
safer than to be daring and criminal; and wide is
the distance between a riot of the populace and a
convulsion of the whole kingdom."--Let. 11.
"The farce of monarchy and aristocracy in all
countries is following that of chivalry, and Mr.
Burke is dressing for the funeral. _The time is
not very distant_ when England will laugh at
itself for sending to Holland, Hanover, Zell, or
Brunswick, for men, at the expense of a million a
year, who understand neither her laws, her
language, nor her interest, and whose capacities
would scarcely have fitted them for the office of
parish constable."--Rights of Man.
"_The period is not very distant_ at which you
will have the means of redress in your own power;
it may be nearer, perhaps, than any of us expect,
and I would warn you to be prepared for
it."--Dedication.
But examples of this kind are not wanting in any chapter or Letter. The
threat, the command, the warning, is a peculiarity so prominent that no
one would fail to observe it. And this peculiarity often passes into the
style of prophecy. As above, Junius says: "The period is not very
distant," and Mr. Paine repeats the expression in the same style: "The
time is not very distant." This reveals, not a literary theft, but a
mind whose mode of thinking and expression was ever the same.
* * * * *
The reader will furthermore notice the peculiarity in the use of "sir,"
and the expressions, "You, Sir William," "You, sir," so common to both.
This arises from the proud and commanding character of Mr. Paine. He
always talks as one having authority, when addressing those he wishes to
satirize, but with an avowed modesty when addressing those he wishes to
influence. This last is seen in Junius, with regard to Lords Rockingham
and Chatham, when speaking of parliamentary reform, and in Common Sense,
when speaking of a constitution and methods of taxation. Junius says,
after giving his own views: "Other measures may, undoubtedly, be
supported in argument, as better adapted to the disorder, or more likely
to be obtained." And Common Sense says: "In a former page I threw out a
few thoughts on the propriety of a continental charter, for I only
presume to offer hints, not plans." These things point to the same
mental source, and this characteristic influences the style to a marked
degree.
* * * * *
I call attention now to what is termed _alliteration:_ the bringing
words together commencing with the same letter, as follows:
_Paine._
Conduct and character.
Mark the movements and meaning.
For law as for land.
Fears and falsities.
Prejudice and prepossession.
Patron and punisher.
Wise and worthy.
Stay and starve.
Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.
_Junius._
Best and brightest.
Character and conduct.
Concurrence of calamitous circumstances.
Catchpenny contrivance.
Dignity of the design.
Enormous excesses.
Faith and folly.
Fashionable formality.
Pernicious principles, etc.
Good faith and folly have long been received as
synonymous terms.
The above are only a few examples. Almost every page exhibits this
feature of the writer. It is a mania with Mr. Paine, and it is almost
the first observable feature of Junius. No other author that I have read
so abounds in alliteration. But herein Junius and Mr. Paine, not content
with two words, frequently unite three, as in some of the examples
above. They also bring two words thus together, and ascending from the
sound to the sense, give them relationship in meaning; as in the last
examples above.
As alliteration exhibits a law of the mind, it can easily be determined,
by the rule of averages, whether Mr. Paine and Junius agree. I have
estimated the ratio by counting twenty thousand words in each, and have
found them to average the same. Were all the words in Junius counted and
compared with the same number in Mr. Paine's political writings, it
would give the true law of averages, but twenty thousand words will give
an approximation not far from the truth.
{107}There is another peculiarity in the style of Mr. Paine and Junius,
arising out of this law of the mind, or this mania for alliteration,
which is to continue the alliteration throughout the paragraph. For
example, if a prominent word begins with an f, t, or p, or any other
letter, he continues to select words beginning with the same letter, or
in which the sound is prominent, while expressing the same thought or
idea. In the following he plays upon like letters in a wonderful manner.
I will put the words in italics:
_Paine._
"_Perhaps_ the sentiments contained in the
_following pages_, are not yet _sufficiently
fashionable_ to _procure_ them general _favor_; a
long habit of not _thinking_ a _thing wrong_ gives
it a _superficial appearance_ of being _right_,
and _raises_, at _first_, a _formidable_ out_cry_
in _defense_ of _custom_. But the _tumult soon
subsides_. _Time makes more converts_ than
reason."--C. S., Introd.
_Junius._
"_Prejudices_ and _passions_ have, sometimes,
_carried_ it to a _criminal_ length, and whatever
_foreigners may imagine_, we know that Englishmen
have erred as _much_ in a _mistaken_ zeal _for
particular persons_ and _families_ as they ever
_did_ in _defense_ of what _they thought_ most
_dear_ and _interesting_ to _themselves_."--Let.
1.
I have not gone out of my way for the above examples. Thousands of just
such examples may be taken from both. This, together with the even
length of the members of the period, is what produces the rythm and
harmony of Mr. Paine's style, and which I have never seen paralleled,
except in Junius. I have compared it with a hundred authors, and never
have I found any thing like it. But Junius is in no respect unlike Mr.
Paine. Had a perfect portrait been painted of Mr. Paine, at the time he
wrote his Common Sense, and another at the time Junius wrote his
Letters, the two portraits could not have more resembled each other than
does the style of Junius resemble that of Mr. Paine. And this is what
can not be imitated, for it arises out of the constitution of the mind,
just like poetry or music; and the poet and musician are born, not made.
Mr. Paine and Junius never use poetry, unless it be a line at the head
of a piece. And they both ridicule the use of it in prose composition.
_Paine._
"I can consider Mr. Burke's book in scarcely any
other light than a dramatic performance, and he
must, I think, have considered it in the same
light himself by the _poetical_ liberties he has
taken of omitting some facts, distorting others,
and making the machinery bend to produce a stage
effect.... I have now to follow Mr. Burke through
a pathless wilderness of rhapsodies."--Rights of
Man, part i.
_Junius._
"These letters, my lord, are read in other
countries and in other languages, and I think I
may affirm without vanity, that the gracious
character of the best of princes is by this time
not only perfectly known to his subjects, but
tolerably well understood by the rest of Europe.
In this respect alone I have the advantage of Mr.
Whitehead. His plan, I think, is too narrow. He
seems to manufacture his verses for the sole use
of the hero who is supposed to be the subject of
them, and, that his meaning may not be exported in
foreign bottoms, sets all translation at
defiance."--Let. 49.
They sometimes wander from the point, and then bring the reader back by
mentioning the fact:
_Paine._
"But to return to the case in question."--Crisis,
vii and xiii. "Passing on from this _digression_,
I shall now endeavor to bring into one view the
several parts."--Crisis, viii. "But to return to
my account."--Rights of Man, part i.
_Junius._
"But, sir, I am sensible I have followed your
example too long, and wandered from the
point."--Let. 18.
Another peculiarity is the method of bringing the subject "into one
view:"
_Paine._
See last quotation above. "Having now finished
this subject, I shall bring the several parts into
one view."--Rights of Man, part ii.
_Junius._
"This, sir, is the detail. In one view, behold,"
etc.--Let. 1.
See also Letter 13.
I have before called attention to the manner in which Mr. Paine signed
his Introduction to Common Sense, and Junius his Dedication; but there
is a similarity in the manner in which they frequently close their
pieces. The expressions, "To conclude," "I shall conclude," "I shall
therefore conclude," are used by both.
* * * * *
There is a marked peculiarity in taking illustrations from the Bible,
and I now speak of and compare the political writings of Mr. Paine with
Junius. Junius is filled with such references, and they are no less
plentiful in Common Sense. This leads me on to speak of figures of
speech.
* * * * *
In the use of the trope I find the one a reproduction of the other. The
metaphor comes before us in every conceivable beauty, and herein they
paint with an artist's skill, and the many delicate touches, as well as
bold strokes, show the same hand at the brush. There is never, for
example, a long and labored metaphor; never a company of them together;
never one that does not apply with admirable effect.
At the close of an article, a figure of speech is often used with a
master's skill, and leaves an impression on the mind of the reader not
easily effaced. In this they are alike. Junius, for example, closes
thirty-six of his Letters in this manner; and in Mr. Paine's three
works--Common Sense, The Crisis, and Rights of Man--he closes
twenty-three parts in this manner, which gives us about the same ratio.
They both abound in metaphor and comparison. Seldom do they use allegory
or hyperbole, but personification and exclamation are frequent. I will
now give a few parallels which I have selected from the many examples,
and I will begin the list with exclamations so common to both:
_Paine._
Alas!
I thank God!
For God's sake!
In the name of Heaven!
Good God!
Good Heavens!
I pray God!
_Junius._
But, alas!
I thank God!
Would to God!
In God's name!
May God protect me!
I appeal to God for my sincerity!
I pray God!
The expression, "I thank God!" is the most frequent with both. As this
is not common with writers, the parallel is a strong one. But to
continue:
_Paine._
"Every political physician will advise a different
medicine."--Common Sense.
_Junius._
"It is not the disorder, but the physician--it is
the pernicious hand of government."--Let. 1.
"Why is the nation sickly?"
"Infuse a portion of new health into the
constitution."--Let. 68.
"Like a prodigal lingering in habitual
consumption, you feel the relics of life, and
mistake them for recovery."--Address to English
people.
"No man regards an eruption on the surface when
the noble parts are invaded and he feels a
mortification approaching the heart."--Let. 39.
"These are the times that try men's
souls."--Crisis, i.
"These are not the times to admit of any
relaxation in the little discipline we have left."
The constituents "making a rod for themselves."
"Under the rod of the constituent."
Speaking of Abbe Raynal's work, he calls it a
"_performance_."--Letter to.
Speaking of M. de Lolme's Essay on Government, he
calls it a "_performance_."--Preface.
"At stake." This expression is very frequent.
"At stake." This expression is very frequent.
"In one view." Quite frequent.
"In one view." Quite frequent.
"The time is not very distant."
"The period is not very distant."
"The simple voice of nature and reason will say it
is right."
"The voice of truth and reason must be silent."
"Where nature hath given the one she hath withheld
the other."
"Nature has been sparing of her gifts to this
noble lord."
"For as the greater weight will always carry up
the less, and all the wheels of a machine are put
in motion by one, it only remains to know which
power in the constitution has most weight."
"We incline the balance as effectually by
lessening the weight in the one scale as by
increasing it in the other."
"You would fain be thought to take no share in
government, while in reality you are the
mainspring of the machine."
"One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly
of hereditary right in kings is that _nature
disapproves it_, otherwise she would not so
frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind
an ass for a lion."
"It is you, Sir William, who make your friend
appear awkward and ridiculous, by giving him a
laced suit of tawdry qualifications which _nature
never intended_ him to wear."
In the last metaphor nature personified is brought forward as the actor,
by turning to ridicule the vanity of man in assuming more than he is.
Junius, without expressing it in words, has put forward the fable of the
ass in a lion's skin, when speaking of Lord Granby's courage. But Mr.
Paine has applied the same fable to the king. The figures are
differently expressed but exactly the same.
_Paine._
"Like wasting an estate on a suit at law to
regulate the trespasses of a tenant, whose lease
is just expiring."
_Junius._
"Like broken tenants who have had warning to quit
the premises, they curse their landlord, destroy
the fixtures, throw every thing into confusion,
and care not what mischief they do the estate."
The above is the same figure, but differently applied. This figure is
quite often used by Mr. Paine and Junius.
_Paine._
"Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm
ardor of a friend, to those who have nobly stood
and are yet determined to stand the matter out. I
call not upon a few, but upon all, up and help us;
lay your shoulders to the wheel."--Crisis, i.
_Junius._
"I turn with pleasure from that barren waste in
which no salutary plant takes root, no verdure
quickens, to a character fertile as I willingly
believe in every great and good qualification. I
call upon you, in the name of the English nation,
to stand forth in defense of the laws of your
country and to exert in the cause of truth and
justice those great abilities with which you were
intrusted for the benefit of mankind."--Let. 68.
There are two facts in the above parallel showing that the same mind
indited both. First: Turning away from those who have deserved and who
have been receiving his censure to the friends of the cause; and,
Secondly: The call which immediately follows: "I call upon you." That it
was not stolen from Junius by Mr. Paine, is proven by two facts. First:
The language and figure are different; and, Secondly: That which makes
it a parallel it is impossible to steal. It is a parallel of conditions,
the one in England and the other in America. But if Junius were not Mr.
Paine, then would the conditions be destroyed. But there is a parallel
of conditions, which can not be plagiarized; therefore Thomas Paine was
Junius.
If it be argued in answer to this reasoning: There might be just such
conditions existing with the character Junius in England as with Paine
in America, which might produce a parallel as above, I admit the
possibility; but the chances are infinity to one against such a
hypothesis.
But to reduce the chances still more, let us bring a parallel of fact to
illustrate a principle of _national honor_.
_Paine._
"There is such an idea in the world as that of
national honor, and this falsely understood is
oftentimes the cause of war. In a Christian and
philosophical sense mankind seem to have stood
still at individual civilizations, and to retain
as nations all the original rudeness of nature.
Peace by treaty is only a cessation of violence
for a reformation of sentiment. It is a substitute
for a principle that is wanting and ever will be
wanting till the idea of national honor is rightly
understood. I remember the late Admiral Saunders
declaring in the House of Commons, and that in the
time of peace, 'That the city of Madrid laid in
ashes was not a sufficient atonement for the
Spaniards taking off the rudder of an English
sloop of war.' I do not ask whether this is
Christianity or morality, I ask whether it is
decency? whether it is proper language for a
nation to use? In private life we call it by the
plain name of bullying, and the elevation of rank
can not alter its character. It is, I think,
exceedingly easy to define what ought to be
understood by national honor; for that which is
the best character for an individual is the best
character for a nation; and wherever the latter
exceeds or falls beneath the former, there is a
departure from the line of true
greatness."--Crisis, vii.
_Junius._
"If we recollect in what manner the _king's
friends_ have been constantly employed, we shall
have no reason to be surprised at any condition of
disgrace to which the once respected name of
Englishman may be degraded.... The expedition
against Port Egmont does not appear to have been a
sudden ill-concerted enterprise: it seems to have
been conducted, not only with the usual military
precautions, but in all the forms and ceremonies
of war. A frigate was first employed to examine
the strength of the place. A message was then sent
demanding immediate possession in the Catholic
king's name, and ordering our people to depart. At
last a military force appears and compels the
garrison to surrender. A formal capitulation
ensues, and his majesty's ship, which might at
least have been permitted to bring home his troops
immediately, is detained in port twenty days and
her rudder forcibly taken away. This train of
facts carries no appearance of the rashness or
violence of a Spanish governor. Mr. Buccarelli is
not a pirate, nor has he been treated as such by
those who employed him. I feel for the honor of a
gentleman when I affirm that our king owes him a
signal reparation. When will the humility of this
country end? A king of Great Britain, not
contented with placing himself upon a level with a
Spanish governor, descends so low as to do a
notorious injustice to that governor. Thus it
happens in private life with a man who has no
spirit nor sense of honor. One of his equals
orders a servant to strike him: instead of
returning the blow to the master, his courage is
contented with throwing an aspertion equally false
and public upon the character of the
servant."--Let. 42.
The above parallel, like the preceding one, arises primarily in the mind
from the association of ideas. The definition of national honor is the
same, and arose out of the same transaction. Taking away the rudder from
an English frigate was a national insult, but instead of demanding
reparation of the king of Spain, the king of England would satisfy his
honor by attacking a king's servant, which furnishes the materials for
the censure of Junius, and Admiral Saunders would be satisfied to see
the city of Madrid laid in ashes, which furnishes the just ground for
the aspersions of Mr. Paine; and from thence they define national honor
to be that deportment which is best suited to an individual. They both
state the case, and then define; the method and figures are the same.
But there is another parallel in these two pieces, and in the same
connection. Mr. Paine and Junius both use very harsh language in
commenting on the facts in the case, and when they close their censure
they say:
_Paine._
"This, perhaps, may sound harsh and uncourtly, but
it is too true, and the more is the pity."
_Junius._
"These are strong terms, sir, but they are
supported by fact and argument."
This apology taken in the same connection, shows the same mind, for it
is a law of nature, whether exhibited in mind or matter, that when given
the same conditions the same results follow. Now if Thomas Paine be not
Junius, then would no such parallels be found; for, as before remarked,
literary theft is impossible, inasmuch as conditions can not be stolen,
and more especially the most important condition in the above case,
_mental constitution_. In other words the case is stated by the _same
person_, in the _same style_, but not in the same language.
_Paine._
"This plain language may, perhaps, sound uncourtly
to an ear vitiated by courtly refinements, but
words were made for use, and the fault lies in
deserving them, or the abuse in applying them
unfairly."--Crisis, ii.
_Junius._
"These sentiments, sir, and the style they are
conveyed in, may be offensive perhaps, because
they are new to you. Accustomed to the language of
courtiers, you measure their affections by the
vehemence of their expressions; and when they only
praise you indifferently you admire their
sincerity."--Let. 35.
"Like a stream of water."
"Like a rapid torrent."
"Slave in buff."
"Cream-colored parasite."
"My creed in politics."
"Political creed we profess."
"Expressed myself over-warmly."
"Passionate language."
"By following the passion and stupidity of the
pilot you wrecked the vessel within sight of the
shore." Applied to England.
"In the shipwreck of the state, trifles float and
are preserved, while every thing solid and
valuable sinks to the bottom and is lost forever."
"It needs no painting of mine to set it off, for
nature can only do it justice."
"The works of a master require no index; his
features and coloring are taken from nature."
"She [England] set out with the title of parent or
mother country. The association of ideas which
naturally accompany this expression are filled
with every thing that is fond, tender, and
forbearing. They have an energy peculiar to
themselves, and overlooking the accidental
attachment of natural affection apply with
infinite _softness_ to the first feelings of the
heart."
"With all his mother's _softness_."
[Mr. Paine argued against this title of "mother country" being applied
to England. And what is remarkable, Junius was never betrayed into it,
even with all his prejudice in favor of the English nation hanging about
him. In Letter 1, he speaks of England as having "alienated the colonies
from their natural affection to their _common_ country," and in no place
says parent or mother country. This fact is a striking parallel.]
"That men never turn rogues without turning fools,
is a maxim sooner or later universally
true."--Crisis, iii.
"There is a proverb concerning persons in the
predicament of this gentleman, 'They commence
dupes, and finish knaves.'"--Let. 49.
"The corrupt and abandoned court of Britain."
"Corruption glitters in the van, collects and
maintains a standing army of mercenaries."
"Trembling duplicity of a spaniel."
"In that state of abandoned servility and
prostitution." ... "The ministry, abandoned as
they are."
"Agony of a wounded mind."
"When the mind is tortured."
"Compound of reasons."
"Compound his ideas."
"Nothing but the sharpest essence of villainy
compounded with the strongest distillation of
folly, could have produced a _menstruum_ that
would have effected a separation."--Crisis, iii.
"He was forced to go through every division,
resolution, composition, and refinement of
political chemistry before he happily arrived at
the _caput mortuum_ of vitriol in your grace. Flat
and insipid in your retired state; but brought
into action you become vitriol again."--Let. 15.
In the above Mr. Paine applies this figure of political chemistry to the
causes which led to the separation of the colonies from England. Junius
is speaking to the Duke of Grafton. "_Menstruum_" and "_Caput mortuum_,"
are old chemical terms. The former means that which will dissolve, and
the latter the worthless matter which is left. They are both figures of
analysis, and show the writer to have given his attention to chemistry.
Mr. Paine, it is well known, in 1775, shortly after arriving in
America, "set his talents to work" to _make_ saltpeter by some cheap and
expeditious method, and formed an association to supply gratuitously the
national magazines with powder. This fact also shows that Mr. Paine came
to America to fight England; for it was before he had written his Common
Sense. His object was, to be prepared; his method was, first the powder
and then the Declaration of Independence, which last was produced by the
pamphlet Common Sense.
_Paine._
"It renders man diminutive in things that are
great, and the counterfeit of woman in things that
are small."--Rights of Man, part i.
_Junius._
"Women, and men like women, are timid, vindictive,
and irresolute."--Let. 41.
"Fact is superior to reasoning."--Rights of Man,
part ii., chap. i.
"The plain evidence of facts is superior to all
declarations."--Let. 5.
"You sunk yourself below the character of a
private gentleman."--Crisis, ii.
"You are degraded below the condition of a
man."--Let. 34.
"Now if I have any conception of the _human
heart_, they will fail in this more than in any
thing they have yet tried."--Crisis, iii.
"I thought, however, he had been better read in
the history of the _human heart_."--Let. 27.
Mr. Paine and Junius both reasoned, and this very often, from the nature
of man, and especially his passions. The following are parallels:
_Paine._
"Spirit of prophecy."
"Man of spirit."
"Air of."
"Strokes of."
"Give color to."
"Tranquillity of."
"Narrow views."
_Junius._
"Spirit of prophecy."
"Man of spirit."
"Air of."
"Strokes of."
"Give color to."
"Tranquillity of."
"Narrow views."
"But the great hinge on which the whole machine
turned, is the _union of the States_."--Crisis,
xv., note.
"This is not the hinge on which the debate
turns."--Let. 16.
"Each individual feels his share of the wound
given to the whole."--Crisis, xii.
"I consider nothing but the wound which has been
given to the law."--Let. 30.
"Thorn in the flesh."
"Thorn in the king's side."
"As the future ability of a giant over a dwarf is
delineated in his features while an
infant."--Crisis, xi.
"The features of the infant are a proof of the
descent."--Let. 58.
"But from such opposition, the French revolution,
instead of suffering, receives homage. The more it
is struck, the more sparks it will emit."--Rights
of Man, part i.
"Hardly serious at first, he is now an enthusiast.
The coldest bodies warm with opposition, the
hardest sparkle in collision."--Let. 35.
"He pities the plumage, but forgets the dying
bird."--Do.
"The feather which adorns the royal bird supports
his flight. Strip him of his plumage, and you fix
him to earth."--Let. 42.
"The ripeness of the continent for independence."
"When you are ripe, you shall be plucked."--Let.
66.
"Had you studied true greatness of heart, _the
first and fairest ornament of mankind_."--Crisis,
vii.
"But neither should I think the most exalted
faculties of the human mind a gift worthy of the
Divinity, nor any assistance in the improvement of
them a subject of gratitude to my
fellow-creatures, if I were not satisfied that
really to inform the understanding, corrects and
enlarges the heart."--Last sentence of Junius.
[This shows a parallel also in the _estimation_ they place upon the
human faculties, which is worth more in argument than any parallel of
figure or expression.]
"Wounded herself to the heart."
"Stab you to the heart."
"Unite in despising you."
"United detestation."
"We are not moved by the gloomy _smile_ of a
worthless king."--Crisis, iv.
"How far you are authorized to rely upon the
sincerity of those _smiles_ which a pious court
lavishes without reluctance upon a libertine by
profession," etc.--Let. 15.
"That which, to some persons, appeared moderation
in you at first, was not produced by any real
virtue of your own, but by a contrast of passions,
dividing and holding you in perpetual
irresolution. One vice will frequently expel
another, without the least merit in the man, as
powers in contrary directions reduce each other to
rest."--Crisis, v.
"We owe it to the bounty of Providence that the
completest depravity of the heart is sometimes
strangely united with a confusion of the mind,
which counteracts the most favorite principles,
and makes the same man treacherous without art,
and a hypocrite without deceiving."--Let. 15.
The last parallel above will bear a moment's thought and study. Paine
says: "Without the least merit in the man." Junius says: "We owe it to
the bounty of Providence." They were both deeply read in the history of
the human heart. The following is of the same nature, showing the same
mental philosophy:
_Paine._
"Men whose political principles are founded on
avarice are beyond the reach of reason, and the
only cure of toryism of this cast is to tax it. A
substantial good drawn from a real evil, is of the
same benefit to society as if drawn from a virtue;
and when men have not public spirit to render
themselves serviceable, it ought to be the study
of government to draw the best possible use from
their vices. When the governing passion of any man
or set of men is once known, the method of
managing them is easy; for even misers, whom no
public virtue can impress, would become generous
could a heavy tax be laid upon covetousness."
_Junius._
"In public affairs there is the least chance of a
perfect concurrence of sentiment or inclination.
If individuals have no virtues, their vices may be
of use to us. I care not with what principle the
new-born patriot is animated if the measures he
supports are beneficial to the community. The
nation is interested in his conduct, the motives
are his own."--Let. 58.
"I am not so unjust as to reason from one crime to
another; though I think that, of all vices,
avarice is most apt to taint and corrupt the
heart."--Let. 27.
"Charity with them begins and ends at
home."--Exam. of Prophecies, Appendix.
"His charity has improved upon the proverb, and
ended where it began."--Let. 27.
"Gut a verse."
"Gut a resolution."
The above are a few of the similar figures which have come under my eye.
The careful reader will, doubtless, find many more, as I have given my
attention to a multiplicity of subjects in this investigation, and many
parallels would thus escape me. But I have given more than sixty, which
ought to arrest the attention of any thinking man. Together with the
above may be taken parallel phrases _frequently_ used by both; for
example: "I affirm," "Excess of folly," "In point of," "Give the lie
to," "For several reasons," "Branded with," "It signifies not,"
"Circumstanced," "For my own part," "In short," "Forever," "Common
cause."
* * * * *
I now pass on to those figures of speech which come in the form of
argumentation, as antithesis and interrogation.
Antithesis is a species of word painting. It is to an argument what
light and shade are to a painting. There can, therefore, be no argument
without antithesis in some form. It may be defined, contrasting or
placing in opposition opinions, sentiments, and ideas. The following are
examples:
_Paine._
"At home and abroad."
"A government of our own is our natural right;
and when a man seriously reflects on the
precariousness of human affairs, he will become
convinced that it is infinitely wiser and safer to
form a constitution of our own in a cool,
deliberate manner, while we have it in our power,
than to trust such an interesting event to time
and chance. _If we omit it now_, some Massanello
may hereafter arise, who, laying hold of popular
disquietudes, may collect together the desperate
and discontented, and, by assuming to themselves
the powers of government, finally sweep away the
liberties of the continent like a deluge."--C. S.
_Junius._
"At home and abroad."
"If we see them obedient to the laws, prosperous
in their industry, united at home and respected
abroad, we may reasonably presume that their
affairs are conducted by men of experience,
abilities, and virtue. _If, on the contrary_, we
see an universal spirit of distrust and
dissatisfaction, a rapid decay of trade,
dissensions in all parts of the empire, a total
loss of respect in the eyes of foreign powers, we
may pronounce, without hesitation, that the
government of that country is weak, distracted,
and corrupt."--Let. 1.
As would naturally be expected from what has already been brought
forward, in regard to the mental constitution of Mr. Paine, he abounds
in this figure and style of argumentation; and it is the same with
Junius. Sentence after sentence, and period after period, are in
antithesis. The expressions, "On the one hand, and on the other," "At
home and abroad," "On this side, and on that," are the constant
companions of both. Hence the method, also, in both, of bringing forward
contradictions in the conduct and character of individuals, or in any
proposition they are attacking. This is the language, also, of ridicule;
the contradiction makes it absurd, the incongruity ridiculous.
Antithesis is, therefore, an argumentative figure of speech, in which
contrast or comparison is made to present an image of things or
principles to the mind. It is to rhetoric what light and shade are to
painting. In no other way can a writer paint a picture. Hence, when Mr.
Paine says, "Were I disposed to _paint_ a contrast," and when Junius
says, "Imagine what you might be, and then reflect upon what you are,"
they reveal the gift of that tremendous power they exhibit in their
productions.
It is from this constitutional arrangement of the mind which makes a man
a good mathematician. For, if one will trace a mathematical process of
reasoning, he will find it to be a system of comparisons or
antitheses--and nothing else--having foundation primarily in _equality_.
The idea of _equality_ is the origin of mathematics. It was, therefore,
a mathematician who wrote Junius. We can not go wrong in this
conclusion, for we reason from first principles, and we would expect to
find his style and language assuming mathematical preciseness, and only
equaled by Mr. Paine in argumentation.
* * * * *
From what has already been said, we would expect to find the frequent
use of the _dilemma_, and the _reductio ad absurdum_--or, that the
contrary of what is true leads to the _absurd_.
_Paine._
"There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the
composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man
from the means of information, yet empowers him
to act in cases where the highest judgment is
required. The state of a king shuts him from the
world, yet the business of a king requires him to
know it thoroughly; wherefore, the different
parts, by unnaturally opposing and destroying each
other, prove the whole character to be absurd and
ridiculous."
_Junius._
"The right of election is the very essence of the
constitution. To violate that right, and, much
more, to transfer it to any other set of men, is a
step leading immediately to the dissolution of all
government. So far forth as it operates, it
constitutes a House of Commons which does not
represent the people. A House of Commons so formed
would involve a contradiction, and the greatest
confusion of ideas; but there are some ministers,
my lord, whose views can only be answered by
reconciling absurdities, and making the same
proposition which is false and absurd in argument
true in fact."--Let. 11.
I give the following dilemmas:
_Paine._
"If you make the necessary demand at home, your
party sinks; if you make it not, you sink
yourself; to ask it now is too late, and to ask it
before was too soon; and, unless it arrive
quickly, will be of no use. In short, the part you
have to act can not be acted."--Crisis, ii.
_Junius._
"This confession reduces you to an unfortunate
dilemma. By renewing your solicitations, you must
either mean to force your country into a war at a
most unseasonable juncture, or, having no view or
expectation of that kind, that you look for
nothing but a private compensation to
yourself."--Let. 25.
But those methods of argumentation are only a species of antithesis, and
may all be reduced to the one fundamental form of comparison. This may
remind us of the fact that all improvement arises from comparison,
whether in language, government, or personal experience.
I have one marked feature of argumentative figure to point out, and this
is, _interrogation_. This is insinuation without direct attack, a sort
of flank movement, when charges are made that can not be proven, or when
too evident to need proof. This style is also not only common to both
Mr. Paine and Junius, but so prominent that it attracts attention at
once.
* * * * *
It is frequently the case with Mr. Paine and Junius that "_language
fails_," that is, it is poured forth in such torrents of abuse that the
reader is made painfully aware of it, and to recapture the mind of the
reader, they artfully charge it to the impossibility of doing justice to
so bad a subject. For example:
_Paine._
"There are cases that can not be overdone by
language, and this is one."--Crisis, i.
"There is not in the compass of language a
sufficiency of words to express the baseness of
your king, his ministry, and his army. They have
refined upon villainy till it wants a name. To the
fiercer vices of former ages they have added the
dregs and scummings of the most finished
rascality, and are so completely sunk in
serpentine deceit that there is not left among
them one generous enemy."--Crisis, v.
_Junius._
"But this language is too mild for the occasion.
The king is determined that our abilities shall
not be lost to society."--Let. 48.
"Our language has no terms of reproach, the mind
has no idea of detestation, which has not already
been happily applied to you and exhausted. Ample
justice has been done, by abler pens than mine, to
the separate merits of your life and character.
Let it be my humble office to collect the
scattered sweets till their united virtue tortures
the sense."--Let. 41.
"We sometimes experience sensations to which
language is not equal. The conception is too bulky
to be born alive, and in the torture of thinking
we stand dumb. Our feelings imprisoned by their
magnitude, find no way out, and in the struggle of
expression every finger tries to be a tongue. The
machinery of the body seems too little for the
mind, and we look about us for help to show our
thoughts by. Such must be the sensation of America
whenever Britain teeming with corruption shall
propose to her to sacrifice her faith."--Crisis,
xii.
"In what language shall I address so black, so
cowardly a tyrant. Thou worse than one of the
Brunswicks and all the Stuarts."--Let. 56.
"The king has been advised to make a public
surrender, a solemn sacrifice in the face of all
Europe, not only of the interest of his subjects,
but of his own personal reputation, and of the
dignity of that crown which his predecessors have
worn with honor. These are strong terms, sir, but
they are supported by fact and argument."--Let.
42.
In the last parallel above, it will be noticed, the strong terms were
called forth by a sacrifice of _national honor_ with Great Britain, and
a prospect of it in the United States. I call attention to this in this
place to save repetition of proofs, showing that proud spirit of
personal honor so prominent in Paine and Junius, and from which they
both say: national honor is governed by the same rules as personal
honor. I now pass to notice the most prominent mental characteristics.
MENTAL CHARACTERISTICS.
If the reader will carry forward in his mind what I have already said on
style and the object for which Mr. Paine and Junius wrote, it will
greatly aid me in reducing the size of this book. I shall act on the
principle of this suggestion, and while I give new matter upon new
subjects, the reader will find the parallels greatly strengthened by
what has already been said. The reader will also apply the facts already
brought forward to the passages I shall hereafter present, so that, like
a two-edged sword, it may be made to cut both ways. And first of
_avarice_ and the _miser_:
_Paine._
"Could I find a miser whose heart never felt the
emotion of a spark of principle, even that man,
uninfluenced by every love but the love of money,
and capable of no attachment but to his interest,
would and must, from the frugality which governs
him, contribute to the defense of the country, or
he ceases to be a miser and becomes an idiot."
_Junius._
"Of all the vices avarice is most apt to taint and
corrupt the heart."--Let. 27.
"As for the common _sordid views_ of avarice,"
etc.--Let. 53.
"The miser himself seldom lives to enjoy the
fruits of his _extortion_."--Let. 20, note.
"Every passion that acts upon mankind has a
peculiar mode of operation. Many of them are
temporary and fluctuating; they admit of cessation
and variety. But avarice is a fixed, uniform
passion. It neither abates of its vigor nor
changes its object."--Crisis, x.
"I could never have a doubt in law or reason
that a man convicted of a high breach of trust and
of a notorious corruption in the execution of a
public office, was and ought to be incapable of
sitting in the same parliament."--Let. 20.
I call attention to that pride of character and personal honor, so
conspicuous in both Paine and Junius:
_Paine._
"A man who has no sense of honor, has no sense of
shame."--Let. to Cheetham.
_Junius._
"Honor and honesty must not be renounced, although
a thousand modes," etc.--Let. 58.
"Knowing my own heart, and feeling myself, as I
now do, superior to all the skirmish of party, the
inveteracy of interested, or mistaken opponents, I
answer not to falsehood or abuse."--R. M., part
ii.
"Junius will never descend to dispute with such a
writer as Modestus."--Let. 29.
"Fortified with that proud integrity, that disdain
to triumph or to yield, I will advocate the rights
of man."--Do.
"For my own part, my lord, I am proud to affirm,
that if I had been weak enough to form such a
friendship, I would never have been base enough to
betray it."--Let. 9.
A thousand passages might be selected from both to show this riding
trait of character. The proud, imposing spirit that would dare to
undertake the business of a world for the good of mankind, and to tread
on the pride of courtiers, and to tell the king, who ruled over the
greatest nation on earth, that nature had only intended him for a
good-humored fool, is pre-eminently the leading trait in Junius and
Paine. No one can mistake it; no one can fail in finding it; no one can
help feeling the force of it. It has never been produced in any other
man. The world's history has given us but the one example of it. We
search in vain for another parallel. And if Mr. Paine did not write
Junius, nature produced twins of the same mental type to do the same
work for mankind, and then defeated all her arts and gave the lie to all
her laws, by exhibiting the one and forever concealing the other. But
surely nature can conceal nothing. Her method is to reveal, not to
conceal. She writes the character of man on all he touches, and reveals
it in the very language he would employ to conceal it.
It was this proud spirit which gave Paine that contempt for monarchy
which he so often expressed. "I have an aversion to monarchy," he says,
"as being too debasing to the dignity of man." This is a language which
courtiers could not understand, and they would consider it the vain
babbling of a mad-man; but it is the very basis of that government which
he labored to establish in America and France. This is also the spirit
of Junius when he says with such withering sarcasm: "It may be matter of
curious speculation to consider, if an honest man were permitted to
approach a king, in what terms he would address himself to his
sovereign." And after having gained the ear of the king, when he says:
"Let it be imagined, no matter how improbable, that he has spirit enough
to bid him speak freely and understanding enough to listen to him with
attention. Unacquainted with the vain impertinence of forms, he would
deliver his sentiments with _dignity_ and firmness." Here Junius, also,
fortified with that proud integrity of character which he held in common
with all who would not be enslaved, and which he possessed as the
birthright of man, was free to place the dignity of an honest man in
antithesis to a weak understanding in a king only supported by the vain
impertinence of forms. Paine was too proud to be vain; his pride came up
from nature; it was the pride of human worth, and opposed to that vanity
of art which always makes pretentions to more worth than nature has
conferred. Nature gives us pride, art makes us vain. It was this pride,
in opposition to vanity, which Junius expressed in his great battle
against the usurpations of government, when he says: "Both liberty and
property are precarious unless the possessors have sense and spirit
enough to defend them. This is not the language of vanity. If I am a
vain man my gratification lies within a narrow circle." That is, "to
write for fame and be unknown."
From this pride of character, so strong and peculiar, we may draw no
weak conclusion in regard to the authorship of Junius, for the parallel
is perfect, and the age in which he wrote gave us nothing like it in any
one but Paine. This characteristic gives tone to the whole mind, and a
shade of coloring to every faculty. It reflects itself upon the people,
and draws therefrom the conclusion that they have more "sense and
spirit" than they really possess. It gives a double coloring to hope,
paints two bows instead of one, and reduces the time for the
establishment of right. It thus produces more faith in the people than
facts will sustain. For example:
_Paine._
"The fraud, hypocrisy, and imposition of
governments are now beginning to be too well
understood to promise them any longer career. The
farce of monarchy and aristocracy in all
countries, is following that of chivalry, and Mr.
Burke is dressing for the funeral."
"The time is not very distant when England will
laugh at itself for sending abroad for a king."
&c.
_Junius._
"I believe there is yet a spirit of resistance in
this country, which will not submit to be
oppressed; but I am sure there is a fund of good
sense in this country which can not be
deceived."--Let. 16.
"Within the space of a few years we have seen two
revolutions, those of America and France.... From
both these instances it is evident that the
greatest forces that can be brought into the field
of revolutions, are reason and common
interest...."
"We may hereafter hope to see revolutions or
changes in government, produced by the same quiet
operation, by which any measure determinable by
reason and discussion, is accomplished."--R. of M.
Part ii.
"Although the king should continue to support his
present system of government, the period is not
very distant, at which you will have the means of
redress in your own power; it may be nearer,
perhaps, than any of us expect.
"I do not believe that monarchy and aristocracy
will continue seven years longer in any of the
enlightened countries of Europe."--R. of M. Part
ii. Pref.
"You are roused at last to a sense of your danger:
the remedy will soon be in your power."--Ded.
But Paine and Junius were both mistaken. Reason will, perhaps, forever
fail to produce a revolution without bloodshed. Reason only prepares for
war, and when time has slowly accomplished the work of reason in any
reform, it terminates that work in convulsions of war. The political
corruptions, also, which Junius was so hopeful would soon be resisted by
the English people, still exist, and the reforms he advocated, although
partly accomplished, fail to produce any better result. The reason is,
the people never resist tyranny till scourged into it, from
self-interest; and, besides, they must worship a tyrant of some
political form, bending the knee to king or party, and baring the back
to the lash. A leader the people must have, under whose banner they can
rally, and which they consider it treason to desert, and whether they
vote for a president or bow to a king, is all the same. The political
prayer of royalty or republicanism, if not in the same words, expresses
the same fact. The one is, "Oh, Lord! to the king I bow, thou knowest he
can do no wrong." The other is, "Oh, Lord! to the party I bow, thou
knowest I never scratched a ticket."
Although Paine and Junius were thoroughly read in the history of the
human heart, they failed to place a proper estimate on the character of
mankind. They failed because they reasoned from their own pride of
character, their own feelings, hopes, and desires, and these far
exceeded the mass of mankind.
They were both too proud to flatter.
_Paine._
"As it is not my custom to flatter but to serve
mankind, I will speak freely."--Crisis, xi.
"The world knows I am not a flatterer."--R. M.,
part ii, Preface.
_Junius._
"I am not conversant in the language of panegyric.
These praises are extorted from me; but they will
wear well, for they have been dearly
earned."--Let. 53.
The above characteristic is quite peculiar. I do not remember of ever
seeing the like of it in any other writer, and as there is a perfect
parallel here, the fact that it stands almost alone gives it great
weight.
* * * * *
They were both enthusiasts, as the following parallel on _moderation_
will show:
_Paine._
"Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary
offense, yet I am inclined to believe that all
those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation
may be included within the following descriptions:
Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak
men who can not see; prejudiced men who will not
see; and a certain sort of _moderate_ men, who
think better of the European world than it
deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged
deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities
to this continent than all the other
three."--Common Sense.
_Junius._
"The lukewarm advocate avails himself of any
pretense to relapse into that indolent
indifference about every thing that ought to
interest an Englishman, so unjustly dignified with
the title of _moderation_."--Let. 58.
"I have been silent hitherto, though not from that
shameful indifference about the interests of
society which too many of us possess and call
_moderation_."--Let. 44.
Paine and Junius both had the same opinion of moderate men.
* * * * *
They both, also, had secretiveness large. That Junius never revealed
himself to the world, and that he baffled all the king's spies, is
evidence enough on his side. I will now present a few evidences in
regard to Mr. Paine. First, in regard to his wife. No one knows why they
parted, and, when interrogated, he would make the evasive answer, "I had
a cause." But, if pressed, he would bluntly respond, "It was a private
affair, and nobody's business." He also sent her money without letting
her know the source of it. Secondly: His Common Sense was kept a secret
from Dr. Franklin till published, and this when the doctor had placed
the materials in his hands toward completing a history of colonial
affairs. He says: "I expected to surprise him with a production on that
subject much earlier than he thought of, and, without informing him what
I was doing, got it ready for the press as fast as I conveniently could,
and sent him the first pamphlet that was printed off." Thirdly: He
projected a plan of going to England in disguise, and getting out a
pamphlet in secret, to rouse the English people. See what he says about
it on page 66 of this book. Fourthly: "The Address and Declaration" of
the gentlemen who met at the Thatched House tavern in 1791, in England,
was written by Mr. Paine, although he was not known, and took no part in
the meeting. He only revealed himself as the author of it after Horne
Tooke, the supposed author, had stated that Mr. Paine was the author.
But this is what he says about it: "The gentleman who signed the
address and declaration as chairman of the meeting, Mr. Horne Tooke,
being generally supposed to be the person who drew it up, and having
spoken much in commendation of it, has been jocularly accused of
praising his own work. To free him from this embarrassment, and to save
him the repeated trouble of mentioning the author, as he has not failed
to do, I make no hesitation in saying, I drew up the publication in
question," etc.--Rights of Man, note.
This is sufficient to show a trait of character which made Junius, as a
secret, a success. Without this strong ruling passion there could have
been no Junius to spring like a tiger upon king and court. But, if it
can be shown in any mental characteristic that Mr. Paine is incompatible
with that character which is stamped upon Junius and made him a success,
I will surrender the argument.
Mr. Paine says, as Horne Tooke had not failed to declare him the author,
he then acknowledged it as his own. Had Mr. Tooke been silent, you may
well be assured Mr. Paine would never have divulged it to friend or foe
of either. Since Mr. Paine above has used the expression, "Jocularly
accused of praising his own work," the reader will not fail to remember
the same characteristic in Junius, when he says of Philo Junius, and who
was also the real Junius himself, that "the subordinate character was
never guilty of the indecorum of praising his principal." This again
reminds us of Mr. Paine, when speaking of that passage in Numbers: "Now
the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were on the face of
the earth." Paine bluntly responds: "If Moses said this of himself,
instead of being the meekest of men, he was one of the most vain and
arrogant of coxcombs."
* * * * *
I now call attention to the fact that Mr. Paine and Junius, when
attacking the private character of men, both seem to delight, when the
fact would fit, in charging bastardy:
_Paine._
"A French _bastard_, landing with an armed
banditti, and establishing himself king of England
against the consent of the natives, is, in plain
terms, a very paltry rascally original. It
certainty hath no divinity in it."--Common Sense.
_Junius._
Speaking of the Duke of Grafton's ancestors:
"Those of your grace, for instance, left no
distressing examples of virtue, even to their
_legitimate_ posterity; and you may look back with
pleasure to an illustrious pedigree, in which
heraldry has not left a single good quality upon
record to insult or upbraid you. You have better
proofs of your descent, my lord, than the register
of a marriage," etc.--Let. 12.
In their appeals to posterity they were both equal and frequent. Mr.
Paine says, in closing his first Crisis: "By perseverance and fortitude
we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission
the sad choice of a variety of evils, a ravaged country, a depopulated
city, habitations without safety, and slavery without hope; our homes
turned into barracks and bawdy-houses for Hessians and a _future race_
to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture
and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who
believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented." Junius also says in
strains as pathetic and patriotic: "We owe it to _posterity_ not to
suffer their dearest inheritance to be destroyed. But if it were
possible for us to be insensible of these sacred claims, there is yet an
obligation binding on ourselves, from which nothing can acquit us, a
personal interest which we can not surrender. To alienate even our own
rights would be a crime as much more enormous than suicide as a life of
civil security and freedom is superior to a bare existence; and if life
be the bounty of Heaven, we scornfully reject the noblest part of the
gift, if we consent to surrender that certain rule of living, without
which the condition of human nature is not only miserable, but
contemptible."--Let. 20.
* * * * *
In the study of the human heart, and in a knowledge of the secret
workings of the mind they were both masters. And, had it not been that
they overapplied the nobler virtues in the common people, they would
never have gone wrong in their conclusions. They failed not in the
knowledge, but in the application of the thing. They thought it existed
where it did not. But this is the law, which they laid down as follows:
_Paine._
"It is the faculty of the human mind to become
what it contemplates, and to act in unison with
its objects."--R. M., part i.
_Junius._
"By persuading others we convince ourselves. The
passions are engaged, and create a maternal
affection in the mind which forces us to love the
cause for which we suffer." ... "When once a man
is determined to believe, the very absurdity of
the doctrine confirms him in his faith."--Let. 35.
The mental constitution of Mr. Paine made him practical. What he knew he
considered of no use to himself unless he could apply it in some way. He
finds the people oppressed by the usurpations of government, and he
urges to rebellion. He finds in America, Britain had prohibited the
importation of powder, and his knowledge of chemistry immediately
supplies the national magazines. His mechanical thought was not
satisfied until it had taken the form of an iron bridge. It was the same
disposition in Junius which kept him forever talking of "experience,"
and the "evidence of facts." I give a single parallel out of hundreds:
_Paine._
"In the progress of politics, as in the common
occurrences of life, we are not only apt to forget
the ground we have traveled over, but frequently
neglect to gather up _experience_ as we
go."--Crisis, iii.
_Junius._
"As you yourself are a singular instance of youth
without spirit, the man who defends you is a no
less remarkable example of _age_ without the
benefit of _experience_."--Let. 9.
I merely call attention to the above fact as a practical feature of the
mind common to both. In the same manner both make frequent mention of
"_reason_" and "common sense." Examples of this kind it is useless to
give, for they look out from every page.
* * * * *
I now pass to consider their doctrines and private opinions; and first
of politics:
I have heretofore proven that they were not partisans in the strict
sense of the term, yet they both had party proclivities:
_Paine._
"There is a dignity in the warm passions of a whig
which is never to be found in the cold malice of a
tory; in the one nature is only heated, in the
other poisoned. The instant the former has it in
his power to punish, he feels a disposition to
forgive, but the canine venom of the latter knows
no relief but revenge. This general distinction
will, I believe, apply in all cases, and suits as
well the meridian of England as America."--Crisis,
vi.
_Junius._
To the king: "You are not, however, destitute of
support. You have all the Jacobites, Non-jurors,
Roman Catholics, and _Tories_ of this country, and
all Scotland without exception.... And truly, sir,
if you had not lost the _Whig_ interest of
England, I should admire your dexterity in turning
the hearts of your enemies."--Let. 35.
"When I hear the undefined privileges of the
popular branch of the legislature exalted by
_tories_ and jacobites, at the expense of those
strict rights which are known to the subject and
limited by the laws, I can not but suspect that
some mischievous scheme is in agitation to destroy
both law and privilege, by opposing them to each
other."--Let. 44.
They both declare _Law to be king_:
_Paine._
"But where, say some, is the king of America? ...
So far as we approve of monarchy, in America _the
law is king_."--C. S.
_Junius._
To the king: "Nor can you ever succeed [against
Wilkes] unless he should be imprudent enough to
forfeit the protection of those _laws to which you
owe your crown_."--Let. 35.
They both express themselves on the game laws of England as follows:
_Paine._
"Had there been a house of farmers, there had been
no game laws.... The French constitution says
there shall be no game laws; that the farmer on
whose lands wild game shall be found (for it is by
the produce of those lands they are fed) shall
have a right to what he can take. In England, game
is made the property of those at whose expense it
is fed."--R. of M.
_Junius._
"As to the game laws, he [Junius] never scrupled
to declare his opinion that they are a species of
the forest laws: that they are oppressive to the
subject; and that the spirit of them is
incompatible with legal liberty: that the
penalties imposed by these laws bear no proportion
to the nature of the offense: that in particular,
the late acts to prevent dog-stealing or killing
game between sun and sun, are distinguished by
their absurdity, extravagance, and pernicious
tendency."--Let. 63.
Both express themselves the same on _laws_ in general:
_Paine._
"The government of a free country, properly
speaking, is not in the persons, _but in the
laws_."--R. of M.
_Junius._
"The submission of a free people to the executive
authority of government is no more than a
compliance with the laws which they themselves
have enacted."--Let. 1.
I would have the reader mark the fact that the above sentiment of Junius
is the first he proclaims in his book. This, it will readily be seen,
contains in itself the whole system of politics which Junius and Paine
labored to establish. From this sentiment arose the frequent expressions
of Junius, "Original rights;" "First rights;" "Sacred original rights of
the people;" "The meanest mechanic is equal to the noblest peer;" and
which Paine embodied in the expression, "Mankind are originally equal in
the order of creation." Herein also we find the foundation for that
method of both in tracing the rights of man back to their origin, and
the easy manner in distinguishing original right from usurpation. A
parallel here will make this plain:
_Paine._
"The example shows to the artificial world that
man must go back to nature for information."--R.
M., part ii. "Can we possibly suppose that if
government had originated in a right principle and
had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, that
the world could have been in the wretched and
quarrelsome condition we have seen it? ... What
was at first plunder, assumed the softer name of
revenue, and the power originally _usurped_ they
affected to inherit."--R. M., part ii., chap. ii.
See, also, a fine specimen of this kind of
argumentation in the first chapter of Common
Sense.
_Junius._
"To establish a claim of privilege in either
house, and to distinguish _original right from
usurpation_, it must appear that it is
indispensably necessary for the performance of the
duty, and also that it has been uniformly allowed.
From the first part of this description it
follows, clearly, that whatever privilege does of
right belong to the present House of Commons, did
equally belong to the first assembly of their
predecessors, was so completely vested in them,
and might have been exercised in the same extent.
From the second we must infer that privileges
which, for several centuries, were not only never
allowed, but never even claimed by the House of
Commons, must be founded upon usurpation."--Let.
44.
In regard to America, I have shown their views to run parallel. Mr.
Paine says in Crisis vii: "The ministry and minority have both been
wrong." And Junius says in his first Letter: "But unfortunately for his
country, Mr. Grenville was at any rate to be distressed because he was
minister, and Mr. Pitt and Lord Camden were to be the patrons of America
because they were in opposition." The minority here meant no more than
the ruin of a minister and split the nation, without doing the colonies
any good. Mr. Paine also says of Lord Chatham on this same point in
Crisis viii: "An opinion hangs about the gentlemen of the minority, that
America would relish measures under their administration which she would
not from the present cabinet. On this rock Lord Chatham would have split
had he gained the helm."
I bring forward this parallel to show three things, the same political
opinions, the same views of the parties in England, and the same figures
of speech, all thrown into the same subject-matter. This, together with
the same resemblance in style, surely point to the same author.
This leads me on to speak of other private opinions. And first of
lawyers, and especially Lord Mansfield:
_Paine._
"It is difficult to know when a lawyer is to be
believed."--Let. to Erskine, Int.
_Junius._
"As a practical profession, the study of the law
requires but a moderate portion of abilities. The
learning of a pleader is usually upon a level with
his integrity. The indiscriminate defense of right
and wrong contracts the understanding, while it
corrupts the heart. Subtlety is soon mistaken for
wisdom, and impunity for virtue. If there be any
instances upon record as some there are
undoubtedly of genius and morality united in a
lawyer, they are distinguished by their
singularity, and operate as exceptions."--Let. 67.
Of those who preside at St. James': "They know no
other influence than corruption, and reckon all
their probabilities from precedent. A new case is
to them a new world, and while they are seeking
for a parallel they get lost. The talents of Lord
Mansfield can be estimated at best no higher than
those of a sophist. He understands the subtleties
but not the elegance of nature, and by continually
viewing mankind through the cold medium of the
law, never thinks of penetrating into the warmer
regions of the mind."--Crisis, vii.
"Considering the situation and abilities of Lord
Mansfield, I do not scruple to affirm, with the
most solemn appeal to God for my sincerity, that
in my judgment he is the very worst and most
dangerous man in the kingdom."--Let. 68.
The above parallel in regard to Lord Mansfield is most remarkable. Let
us consider it. Whether the statements be true or not, is immaterial.
Mr. Paine said he knew no other influence than corruption; that his
talents were those of a sophist, and that he understood the subtleties
of nature, not its elegance. Reference is here had to the Athenian
sophists, whose art it was "to make the worse appear the better reason."
This art made them talented in a certain direction, and in the
employment of it they became renowned and rich. Paine affirms that the
law had corrupted him. Junius says the practice of the law makes a bad
man, and that Mansfield was, considering the conditions, the worst man
in the kingdom. This is an opinion so singular and prominent, so rare
among men, and expressed so boldly and unqualifiedly, by both Paine and
Junius, that it furnishes a parallel which comes with positive and
telling force. Perhaps Paine and Junius were the only two writers at the
time who held this opinion. And that they should express it in the same
manner, with all the fine shades and attending peculiarities the same,
and be at the same time two persons, is a phenomenon which nature never
exhibited but once, and never will again among mankind. To remove the
weight of this evidence, something positive must be brought forward to
rebut it.
* * * * *
It will be noticed above that Mr. Paine spoke of "precedent" being the
basis of reckoning all their probabilities, and that a new case was a
new world. Here we find another parallel in opinion:
_Paine._
"Government by precedent, without any regard to
the principle of the precedent, is one of the
vilest systems that can be set up. In numerous
instances, the precedent ought to operate as a
warning, and not as an example, and requires to be
shunned instead of imitated; but, instead of this,
precedents are taken in the lump, and put at once
for constitution and for _law_."--R. of M., part
ii., chap. iv.
_Junius._
"Precedents, in opposition to principle, have
little weight with Junius, but he thought it
necessary to meet the ministry on their own
ground."--Let. 16, note.
"I am no friend to the doctrine of precedents,
exclusive of right, though lawyers often tell us
that whatever has been done once may lawfully be
done again."--Preface.
Many examples could be given of the above likeness, but these are
sufficient.
* * * * *
I submit the following in regard to Lord North:
_Paine._
"As for Lord North, it is his happiness to have in
him more philosophy than sentiment, for he bears
flogging like a top, and sleeps the better for it.
His punishment becomes his support, for while he
suffers the lash for his sins, he keeps himself up
by twirling about. In politics, he is a good
arithmetician, and in every thing else _nothing at
all_."--Crisis, vii.
_Junius._
"The management of the king's affairs in the House
of Commons can not be more disgraced than it has
been. A leading minister repeatedly called down
for absolute ignorance, ridiculous motions
ridiculously withdrawn, deliberate plans
disconcerted, a week's preparation of graceful
oratory lost in a moment, give us some though not
adequate ideas of Lord North's parliamentary
abilities and influence. Yet, before he had the
misfortune of being Chancellor of the Exchequer,
he was neither an object of derision to his
enemies, nor of melancholy pity to his friends. I
hope he [Grafton] will not rely on the fertility
of Lord North's genius for finance; _his lordship
is yet to give us the first proof of his
abilities_."--Let. 1.
Mr. Paine, no doubt, had in his mind this passage of Junius when he
described him as a twirling top, a good arithmetician in _politics_, but
in every thing else nothing at all.
* * * * *
In speaking of the misconduct of England, they both make it commence at
the termination of the Seven Years' War, and speak of the time reckoned
from the beginning of the year 1763. I will notice Junius first, so as
to present this parallel in chronological order. He says in his first
Letter, written Jan. 21, 1769: "Outraged and oppressed as we are, this
nation will not bear, _after a six years'_ peace, to see new millions,"
etc. On February 14, 1770, he says: "_At the end of seven years_ we are
loaded with a debt," etc. This is the method, in regard to time Junius
always employs when speaking of the distress and calamities of England.
Let us now pass over to America, and we find, near the close of 1778,
Mr. Paine uses the same method and language, when addressing the people
of England in Crisis, vii: "A period of sixteen years of misconduct and
misfortune is certainly long enough for any one nation to suffer under."
He elsewhere uses the same language in the same way, which shows a
mental habit peculiar to both.
* * * * *
The same opinion of court and courtier has elsewhere been shown, but a
definite parallel or two may not be out of place:
_Paine._
"For the caterpillar principles of all courts and
courtiers are alike."--Rights of Man, part i.
_Junius._
"Where birth and fortune are united, we expect the
noble pride and independence of a man of spirit,
not the servile, humiliating complaisance of a
courtier."--Let. 1.
They held the same opinion of oaths:
_Paine._
"If a government requires the support of oaths, it
is a sign that it is not worth supporting, and
ought not to be supported."--R. of M., part ii,
chap. iv.
_Junius._
"He [the minister] is the tenant of the day, and
has no interest in the inheritance. The sovereign
himself is bound by other obligations, and ought
to look forward to a superior, a permanent
interest. His paternal tenderness should remind
him how many hostages he has given to society. The
ties of nature come powerfully in aid of _oaths_
and protestations."--Let. 38.
They place _personal interest_ above strict _moral right_, as a means of
improvement:
_Paine._
"As to mere theoretical reformation, I have never
preached it up. The most effectual process is that
of improving the condition of man by means of his
interest, and it is on this ground that I take my
stand."--R. of M., part ii, chap. v.
_Junius._
"It will be said, that I deny at one moment what I
would allow at another. To this I answer,
generally, that human affairs are in no instance
governed by strict, positive right.... My
premises, I know, will be denied in argument, but
every man's conscience tells him they are true. It
remains then to be considered whether it be for
the _interest of the people_," etc.--Let. 44.
The reader will here see a mental characteristic the same, and a
philosophy growing therefrom which is boldly affirmed by both.
* * * * *
That we gather strength by antagonism, and in this way the vicious are
often brought into notice and become successful, is a prominent fact
noticed by both.
_Paine._
"Those whose sentiments are injudicious or
unfriendly, will cease of themselves, unless too
much pains is bestowed upon their conversion."--C.
S., Int.
_Junius._
"Mr. Wilkes, if not persecuted, will soon be
forgotten."--Let. 11. See also Let. 1 and 35.
I have heretofore given examples of the above to prove another fact.
* * * * *
I now call attention to the passion of suspicion:
_Paine._
"I am not of a disposition inclined to suspicion.
It is, in its nature, a mean and cowardly passion,
and, upon the whole, even admitting error into the
case, it is better; I am sure it is more generous
to be wrong on the side of confidence, than on the
side of suspicion. _But_, I know as a fact, that
the English government.... Their
anti-revolutionary doctrines invite suspicion even
against one's will, and in spite of one's charity
to believe well of them."--Let. to Samuel Adams.
_Junius._
"The situation of this country is alarming enough
to rouse the attention of every man who pretends
to a concern for the public welfare. Appearances
justify _suspicion_; and when the safety of a
nation is at stake, suspicion is a just ground of
inquiry."--Let. 1.
The above is strong language in regard to _suspicion_. Paine thinks it
mean and cowardly if not well founded, and Junius thinks it is
justifiable when the safety of a nation is at stake. This is an uncommon
sentiment, and, if Mr. Paine was Junius, he is found repeating himself
after an interval of thirty-four years.
In regard to thinking for one's self, Junius says of Benson, in
withering rebuke to Lord Mansfield, who had committed him for contempt:
"He had the _impudence_ to pretend to _think for himself_." Paine
exclaims: "Why is man afraid to think?"
* * * * *
There is a fact now in regard to the English army which is of great
weight in my argument relative to a change of opinion. Junius always
spoke highly of the army, while he sometimes censured individual
officers. Speaking of the regiments of the guards, he says: "Far be it
from me to insinuate the most distant reflection upon the army. On the
contrary, I honor and esteem the profession, and if these gentlemen were
better soldiers I am sure they would be better subjects." Mr. Paine,
just nine years afterward, when in America, and fighting against the
English army, says of the English people: "They are made to believe that
their generals and armies differ from those of other nations, and have
nothing of rudeness or barbarity in them. They suppose them what they
wish them to be; they feel a disgrace in thinking otherwise. There was a
time when I felt the same prejudices, and reasoned from the same errors;
but experience--sad and painful experience--has taught me better. What
the conduct of former armies was I know not, but what the conduct of the
present is I well know--it is low, cruel, indolent, and
profligate."--Crisis, vii. This is a species of dovetailing the life and
opinions of Junius into those of Mr. Paine. But the reader will see
there is no effort on my part. All I ask is for truth to take its
course. It would be beneath the dignity of a scientific criticism to
stoop to artifice.
* * * * *
I wish now to bring forward a complex parallel, to show that pride of
character which would not stoop to the meanness of party politics, and
to show, also, their opinion of bribery at elections, and the origin of
"military governments" in England.
"It is difficult," says Mr. Paine, "to account for the origin of charter
and corporation towns, unless we suppose them to have arisen out of, or
having been connected with, some species of garrison service. The times
in which they began justify this idea. The generality of these towns
have been garrisons, and the corporations were charged with the care of
the gates of the town when no military garrison was present. Their
refusing or granting admission to strangers, which has produced the
custom of giving, selling, and buying freedom, has more of the nature of
garrison authority than civil government."--Rights of Man, part ii,
chap. 5, note.
I am now prepared to give the parallels:
_Paine._
"As one of the houses of the English Parliament is
in a great measure made up by elections from these
corporations, and as it is unnatural that a pure
stream would flow from a foul fountain, its vices
are but a continuation of the vices of its origin.
A man of moral honor and good political principles
can not submit to the mean _drudgery_ and
disgraceful arts by which such elections are
carried."
_Junius._
"But it seems the sale of a civil employment was
not sufficient, and _military governments_, which
were intended for the support of worn-out
veterans, must be thrown into the scale to defray
the extensive bribery of a contested
election."--Let. 34.
"But is there no honorable way to serve the public
without engaging in personal quarrels with
insignificant individuals, or submitting to the
_drudgery_ of canvassing votes for an
election."--Let. 53.
Says Mr. Paine: "_I love method._" This, every action proved. His
business transactions, his political plans, the productions of his pen,
were all in design and execution methodical. In dedicating his life to
the good of mankind, he studied method in the use of his great mental
powers. He never set about doing any thing without a plan and
specifications. He carried in the brain the ideal of the work he was to
give material shape and substance. His plans were always well-digested
and often long in maturing. He, for example, anticipated the revolution,
and proceeded to fill the public arsenals with powder. He then brought
out Common Sense, when public opinion was decidedly against a
declaration of independence, to educate that public sentiment in favor
of it. This produced the desired effect, and when war was fairly begun
upon a proper basis and plan, he struck the enemy at the proper time and
place with an occasional Crisis. The first Crisis he wrote, for example,
won a battle for the Union. After the war was over, he went to England
and brought out his Rights of Man, laboring in the same lines and
advocating the very principles of Junius. There is not a political
principle expressed in Junius which was not again reproduced in Rights
of Man. But method is stamped upon every production of his pen. Take,
for example, Common Sense. The design was to bring public sentiment up
to a declaration of independence. Now if we examine the method of the
work, we will find the steps like a geometrical demonstration, from
first principles to conclusion. In Common Sense he first convinces the
reason, then inflames the passions, and lastly destroys dissension by a
stirring, manly, patriotic appeal. The work proper is divided into four
parts.
I. Of the origin and design of government. Here the first principles are
laid down, and are such as to convince the mind of every man capable of
thinking. He then shows that the English constitution is not founded
upon such principles; and that a people seeking political happiness
while clinging to such a rotten government, is like a man seeking
connubial happiness while he is attached to a prostitute.
II. Of monarchy and hereditary succession. Here he brings out his great
political axiom, _the equality of man in the order of creation_, and
then ridicules the pretentions of kings, and demolishes the whole fabric
of "sacred titles" by an appeal to sacred and profane history, to the
rights of man, to his reason, to his affections, and to posterity. He
has now prepared the mind of the American reader for the reception of
truth, and he brings forward--
III. Thoughts on the present state of the American affairs.
He begins by saying: "In the following pages I offer nothing more than
simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense." It is now he warms
with the subject, and having before prepared the mind with exalted views
of government and with the axioms upon which all just governments are
founded; having before shown that all legislative powers are derived
from the people, and founded in the consent of the governed; having, in
short, announced his bill of rights, he now comes forward with an
indictment against England. This is full and complete, and by the time
the reader has done with it he is then prepared for his final argument,
which is--
IV. The ability of America to acquire and maintain her independence.
He afterward added an appendix, in which he recounts the principal
causes which impel the colonies to a separation.
The reader will remark the _method_ of the whole piece. He takes hold of
the mind by strategy at first, and then places before it principles,
facts, causes, and consequences, till he has made it entirely his own.
If now the reader will return to the first Letter of Junius, he will
find an admirable example of the same method. As to _method_, the two
pieces are every way identical. Did a person not study this Letter of
Junius, he would perhaps fail to get, at first, the exact likeness which
Mr. Paine has so completely reproduced in Common Sense, as an artistic
performance.
Junius' Letter to the king is also an example of the same method. There
is, first, the bill of rights, and then the indictment. We find here the
same strategy, which takes possession of the mind of the people, the
same method to place the writer above and beyond selfish motives, the
same foundation of principles, the same superstructure of argument, and
the same method of bringing the reader to the conclusions. Herein we
find _policy_.
* * * * *
The policy of Mr. Paine made him extremely cautious, and he weighed well
the consequences of speaking to the public, studying especially the
proper time. This was the habit of Junius also. I will now give a few
examples: When the civil laws of England had been trampled on by the
military, in the case of General Gansel, Junius delayed speaking about
it. He says: "Had I taken it up at an earlier period, I should have been
accused of an uncandid, malignant precipitation, as if I watched for an
unfair advantage against the ministry, and would not allow them a
reasonable time to do their duty. They now stand without excuse."--Let.
30. He then proceeds to strike the ministry "hip and thigh." In Letter
44 he also mentions the fact of having been silent, not from a "shameful
indifference," but because he had determined to "not deliver a hasty
opinion on a matter of so much delicacy and importance."
The same constitutional caution is exhibited in Mr. Paine. Upon national
honor, in Crisis xii, dated May, 1782, he says: "In March, 1780, I
published part of the Crisis, No. viii, in the newspapers, but did not
conclude it in the following papers, and the remainder has lain by me
till the present day. There appeared about that time some disposition in
the British cabinet to cease the further prosecution of the war, and as
I had formed my opinion that whenever such a design should take place,
it would be accompanied by a dishonorable proposition to America
respecting France, I had suppressed the remainder of that number, not to
expose the baseness of any such proposition." He now incorporates it in
this number, and then follows with one of the noblest productions on
national honor which it has been the fortune of man to write.
* * * * *
I now give an opinion on the principles of the English constitution:
_Paine._
"A government on the principles on which
constitutional governments arising out of society
are established, can not have the right of
altering itself. If it had, it would be
arbitrary. It might make itself what it pleased;
and whenever such a right is set up, it shows that
there is no constitution. The act by which the
English parliament empowered itself to sit for
seven years, shows there is no constitution in
England. It might, by the same self-authority,
have to sat any greater number of years, or for
life."--R. of M., part i.
_Junius._
"There can not be a doctrine more fatal to the
liberty and property we are contending for, than
that which confounds the idea of a supreme and an
arbitrary legislature.... If the majority can
disfranchise ten boroughs, why not twenty--why not
the whole kingdom? Why should not they make their
own seats in parliament for life? When the
septennial act passed, the legislature did what,
apparently and palpably, they had no power to
do."--Let. 68.
Although the above doctrine that the people, not the legislature, are
supreme, is not new, yet it was rarely asserted in the time of Paine,
and renders the above parallel strong and peculiar. Even the same
language is used in making the same application to the septennial act,
which might as well have empowered the members of parliament to sit _for
life_.
* * * * *
Here is a parallel on the opinion of the _jobbing_ spirit of courtiers:
_Paine._
"Every nation that does not govern itself, is
governed as a _job_. England has been the prey of
_jobs_ ever since the revolution."--R. of M., part
ii, chap, v., note.
_Junius._
To Draper: "It would have been more decent in you
to have called this dishonorable transaction by
its true name, a _job_, to accommodate two persons
by particular interest and management at the
castle."--Let. 7.
Both Paine and Junius frequently give vent to their detestation of
gambling and gamblers. A single case in point is sufficient:
_Paine._
"Those who knew the savage obstinacy of the king,
and the jobbing, _gambling_ spirit of the court,
predicted the fate of the petition."--Crisis, iii.
_Junius._
To Bedford: "His own honor would have forbidden
him from mixing his private pleasures or
conversation with jockeys, _gamesters_,
blasphemers, gladiators, and buffoons."--Let. 23.
See, also, Let. 14.
They both have the same opinion of the _theater_; but as the proof of
this is only circumstantial, I will not cumber these pages with it. We
know that Paine was a Quaker upon this point; and Junius contemptuously
addresses Garrick, the actor, "Now mark me, _vagabond_! keep to your
_pantomimes_," etc.
* * * * *
I now pass to consider their religious opinions. And, first, their views
of God:
_Paine._
"The Almighty hath implanted in us these
unextinguishable feelings for good and wise
purposes."--C. S.
"The country was the gift of Heaven, and God alone
is their Lord and sovereign."--Crisis, v.
"From such men and such masters may the gracious
hand of Heaven preserve America."
_Junius._
"Grateful as I am to the good Being whose bounty
has imparted to me this reasoning intellect,"
etc.--Let. 68.
"They acknowledged the hand of Providence in the
descent of the crown upon the head of a true
Stuart." [Spoken in irony.]--Let. 49.
"If they should no longer appeal to the creature
of the constitution, but to that high Being, who
gave them the rights of humanity, whose gifts it
were sacrilege to surrender, let me ask you sir,"
etc.--Let. 35.
"The will of God hath parted us, and the deed is
registered for eternity."--Crisis, v.
"Even the distance at which the Almighty hath
placed America and England, is a strong and
_natural_ proof that the authority of the one over
the other was never the design of Heaven.
"I do not scruple to affirm, with the most solemn
appeal to God for my sincerity."--Let. 68.
"The people also found it necessary to appeal to
Heaven in their turn."--Let. 9.
"The reformation was preceded by the discovery of
America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to
open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future
years, when home should afford neither friendship
nor safety.
"I am as confident, as I am that God governs the
world, that America will never be happy till she
gets clear of foreign dominion."--Crisis, i.
"And if life be the bounty of Heaven, we scorn
fully reject the noblest part of the gift,"
etc.--Let. 20.
"If when the opportunity offers itself you neglect
to do your duty to yourselves and to posterity, to
_God_ and your country," etc.--Dedication.
Of Providence they further say:
_Paine._
"But Providence, who best knows how to time her
misfortunes as well as her immediate favors, chose
this to be the time, and who dare dispute
it?"--Crisis, iii.
"To the _interposition of Providence_ and her
blessings on our endeavors, and not to British
benevolence are we indebted for the short chain
that limits your ravages."--Crisis, vi.
"To deny such a right would be a kind of atheism
against nature, and the beat answer to such an
objection will be: 'The fool hath said in his
heart there is no God!'"--Crisis, iii.
_Junius._
"If it should be the will of Providence to afflict
him with a domestic misfortune," etc.--Let. 23.
"The next is a most remarkable instance of the
goodness of Providence."--Let. 66.
"If by the immediate _interposition of Providence_
it were possible for us to escape a crisis so full
of terror and despair, posterity will not believe
the history of the present times."--Let. 1.
Mr. Paine wrote the Age of Reason as an argument against atheism on the
one hand and fanaticism on the other. This he says himself.
* * * * *
I will now give the language of Mr. Paine on religion, infidelity,
atheism, fanaticism, and morality, and then subscribe the language of
Junius.
{163}In his discourse to the Theophilanthropists of Paris, Mr. Paine says:
"Religion has two principal enemies--_fanaticism and infidelity_, or
that which is called _atheism_. The first requires to be combatted by
reason or morality, the other by natural philosophy." In opposing
atheism he makes intelligent force the God of the universe. This is his
language: "_God is the power_, or first cause, _nature is the law_, and
_matter is the subject acted upon_." That is, there is a duality in the
universe--_force_ and _matter_; and the action of _force_ on matter
produces the _laws of nature_, or, every phenomenon is produced by the
motion of matter. He founds his argument against atheism on the _motion_
of matter, and elaborates it in his clear and forcible style, and then
says: "Where will infidelity--where will atheism find cause for this
astonishing velocity of motion, never ceasing, never varying, and which
is the preservation of the earth in its orbit? It is not by reasoning
from an acorn to an oak, or from any change in the state of matter on
the surface of the earth, that this can be accounted for. _Its cause is
not to be found in matter, nor in any thing we call nature._ The atheist
who affects to reason, and the fanatic who rejects reason, plunge
themselves alike into inextricable difficulties. The one perverts the
sublime and enlightening study of natural philosophy into a deformity of
absurdities by not reasoning to the end, the other loses himself in the
obscurity of metaphysical theories, and dishonors the Creator by
treating the study of his works with contempt. The one is a
half-rational of whom there is some hope, the other is a visionary to
whom we must be charitable."
I wish the reader to compare with the last sentence above the following
extracts from Junius, to be found in Letters 44 and 35: "The opinions of
these men are too absurd to be easily renounced. Liberal minds are open
to conviction, liberal doctrines are capable of improvement. _There are
proselytes from atheism, but none from superstition._" "When once a man
is determined to believe, the very absurdity of the doctrine confirms
him in his faith."
* * * * *
But Junius, like Paine, was a _religious_ man. In Letter 56, he says: "I
know such a man; my lord, I know you both, _and, with the blessing of
God_ (_for I, too, am religious_), the people of England shall know you
as well as I do."
As Mr. Paine has been misunderstood by the religious world, and as so
much has been said against his religion that a prejudice deep and bitter
now rests on the world against him, I will give a couple of extracts
from his Rights of Man on this point. I confess that my own prejudices
were so great against him (and I thought myself quite liberal), that
they would not suffer me to read his works till quite recently. Such is
the tyranny of religious instruction. The first extract is from the
first part. In a note, he says: "There is a single idea, which, if it
strikes rightly upon the mind, either in a legal or a religious sense,
will prevent any man, or any body of men, or any government, from going
wrong on the subject of religion; which is, that before any human
institutions of government were known in the world, there existed, if I
may so express it, a compact between God and man from the beginning of
time; and that, as the relation and condition which man in his
individual person stands in toward his Maker can not be changed by any
human laws or human authority, that religious devotion, which is a part
of this compact, can not so much as be made a subject of human laws; and
that all laws must conform themselves to the prior-existing compact, and
not assume to make the compact conform to the laws, which, besides being
human, are subsequent thereto. The first act of man, when he looked
around and saw himself a creature which he did not make, and a world
furnished for his reception, must have been devotion; and devotion must
ever continue sacred to every individual man, as it appears right to
him, and governments do mischief by interfering."
The next extract is from part second, near its close, and I would call
the attention of the reader to the beauty of the allegory:
"But as religion is very improperly made a political machine, and the
reality of it is thereby destroyed, I will conclude this work with
stating in what light religion appears to me.
"If we suppose a large family of children on any particular day, or
particular occasion, made it a custom to present to their parents some
token of their affection and gratitude, each of them would make a
different offering, and most probably in a different manner. Some would
pay their congratulations in themes of verse and prose, others by some
little devices, as their genius dictated or according to what they
thought would please; and, perhaps, the least of all, not able to do any
of those things, would ramble into the garden or the field and gather
what it thought the prettiest flower it could find, though perhaps it
might be but a simple weed. The parents would be more gratified by such
a variety than if the whole of them had acted on a concerted plan, and
each had made exactly the same offering. This would have the cold
appearance of contrivance, or the harsh one of control. But of all
unwelcome things nothing would more afflict the parent than to know that
the whole of them had afterwards gotten together by the ears, boys and
girls, fighting, and reviling, and abusing each other about which was
the best or the worst present.
"Why may we not suppose that the great Father of all is pleased with a
variety of devotion; and that the greatest offense we can act is that by
which we seek to torment and render each other miserable? For my own
part I am fully satisfied that what I am now doing with an endeavor to
conciliate mankind, to render their condition happy, to unite nations
that have hitherto been enemies, and to extirpate the horrid practice of
war, and break the chains of slavery and oppression, is estimable in his
sight, and being the best service I can perform, I act it cheerfully.
"I do not believe that any two men, on what are called doctrinal points,
think alike who think at all."
[And this, my reader, is Thomas Paine who hath spoken. I would like to
have Henry Ward Beecher, after he has read this book, take the above
passage as a text and preach a sermon from it.]
I now call attention to a few parallels:
_Paine._
"A narrow system of politics like a narrow system
of religion, is calculated only to sour the
temper, and be at variance with mankind."--Crisis,
iii.
_Junius._
"Superstition is certainly not the characteristic
of this age; yet some men are bigoted in politics
who are infidels in religion."--Let. 67.
"Secluded from the world, attached from his
infancy to one set of persons and one set of
ideas, he can neither open his heart to new
connections nor his mind to better information. A
character of this sort is the soil fittest to
produce that obstinate bigotry in politics and
religion which begins with a meritorious
sacrifice of the understanding and finally
conducts the monarch and the martyr to the
block."--Let. 39.
Junius is here speaking of the king, who with a narrow understanding
would naturally have a narrow system of politics and religion. But
again:
_Paine._
"We persecute no man, neither will we abet in the
persecution of any man for religion's
sake."--Crisis, iii.
_Junius._
"The fundamental principles of Christianity may
still be preserved though every zealous sectary
adheres to his own exclusive doctrine, and pious
ecclesiastics make it part of their religion to
persecute one another."--Let. 58.
"The writer of this is one of those few who never
dishonors religion, either by ridiculing or
caviling at any denominations whatsoever. To God
and not to man are all men accountable on the
score of religion."--Epistle to the Quakers.
"If I thought Junius capable of uttering a
disrespectful word of the religion of his country
I should be the first to renounce and give him up
to the public contempt and indignation."--Let. 54.
Above it is Philo Junius who is speaking; but the reader will remember
he is the real Junius. He had been attacked for his impiety, and he puts
Philo Junius forward to defend himself. The reader can not fail to
notice the same hand in the last parallel. Paine says: "The _writer_ of
this is one of _those few_ who never dishonors religion" by abusing the
professors of it. And he never did. Junius ridiculed the ceremonial in
the Catholic Church which denies the cup to the laity; and of this he
says: "It is, in this country, as fair an object of ridicule as
_transubstantiation_, or any other part of Lord Peter's History in the
Tale of the Tub." This reminds me of what Paine says of popery and
Peter: "A man hath as good reason to believe that there is as much of
kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding the scripture from the public in
popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the popery of
government."--Common Sense. In regard to Peter, we see the same
temptation to touch his pen with satire and ridicule, and the passage
may be found in Rights of Man, part first. It is as follows: "I will
quote Mr. Burke's catalogue of barriers that he has set up between man
and his maker. Putting himself in the character of a herald, he says:
'We fear God; we look with _awe_ to kings; with affection to
parliaments; with duty to magistrates; with reverence _to_ priests; and
with respect to nobility.' Mr. Burke has forgot to put in chivalry. _He
has also forgot to put in Peter._"
* * * * *
They both considered it true that there is a wide difference between
_piety_ and _morality_. Paine himself says (and it is the noblest
sentiment ever uttered by man): "MY COUNTRY IS THE WORLD, AND MY
RELIGION IS TO DO GOOD." Junius frequently puts piety and morality in
antithesis, as the following examples will show: "They care not what
injustice is practiced upon a man whose _moral character_ they _piously_
think themselves obliged to condemn."--Let. 39. "The _unfeigned piety_,
the _sanctified religion_ of George the Third have taught him to
new-model the civil forces of the State. _Corruption glitters in the
van_," etc. Then, speaking of some of his predecessors, he says: "They
were kings or gentlemen, not hypocrites or priests. They were at the
head of the Church, but did not know the value of their office. They
said their prayers without ceremony, and had too little of priestcraft
in their understanding to reconcile the _sanctimonious forms_ of
religion with the utter destruction of the _morality_ of the
people."--Let. 55.
* * * * *
But Mr. Paine was the inveterate enemy to priestcraft as well as
kingcraft. His whole life was spent in waging war against the two. Let
us now see what Junius thought of the former. I have shown him to run
parallel with Mr. Paine in the latter.
Junius says: "The resentment of a priest is implacable: no sufferings
can soften; no penitence can appease."--Let. 53. In speaking of the Rev.
Mr. Horne, he says: "No, my lord; it was the solitary, vindictive malice
of a monk, brooding over the infirmities of his friends, until he
thought they quickened into public life, and feasting with a rancorous
rapture upon the sordid catalogue of his distresses. Now let him go back
to his cloister. The Church is a proper retreat for him; in his
principles he is already a bishop. The mention of this man has moved me
from my natural moderation."--Let. 49. Again:
"The priesthood are accused of misinterpreting the scriptures. Mr. Horne
has improved on his profession. He alters the text, and creates a
refutable doctrine of his own."--Let. 53.
The above passages can not be mistaken for Mr. Paine's spirit, style,
and language. These tell us they are his with much more truth than a
name attached to any writing tells us its author.
* * * * *
It seems they both had the same opinion of a _Methodist_:
_Paine._
"But when he [man] multiplies his creed with
imaginary things, he forces his mind, and pretends
to believe what he does not believe. This is, in
general, the case with the _Methodists_--their
religion is all creed and no morals."--Let. to Mr.
Dean.
_Junius._
"You meanly evaded the question, and, instead of
the explicit firmness and decision of a king, gave
us nothing but the misery of a ruined grazier, and
the whining piety of a _Methodist_."--Let. 36.
Now the reader will recall the parallel I gave in regard to never
dishonoring religion by saying any thing against particular forms or
denominations. With the exception of the Catholic Church, this is the
only instance which has fallen under my eye; and it seems they had such
a disliking to Methodism, a sarcasm must be let loose upon it. Trifling
as this instance may seem, there is great force in its being solitary,
and apparently contradictory to what they both before affirmed in
general. Such an instance has, in fact, more weight than a score of
parallels on common characteristics, for it shows a peculiar and strong
bias in a particular direction.
* * * * *
Of the term Christian there is no positive ground for a parallel,
because it is one of no definite meaning. We call ourselves, as a
nation, Christians; yet we are divided into a hundred forms of
{172}religion, and many of them in the articles of faith contradictory and
antagonistic. Yet, in the fundamental principles of morality, we are, in
common with all civilized races, agreed. The Christian religion happens
to belong to the highest civilization, and we frequently use the term as
synonymous with the _morality_ of this civilization. But when we come to
define strictly according to the theological import of the word, there
are many of us who are not Christians. In the former sense, Mr. Paine
and Junius were Christians; in the latter sense, they were not. And now
for the proof. Junius says, in Letter 15, to the Duke of Grafton: "It is
not, indeed, the least of the thousand contradictions which attend you,
that a man marked to the world by the grossest violation of ceremony and
decorum, should be the first servant of a court in which _prayers are
morality_, and _kneeling is religion_." For this, and his attacks on the
priesthood, and his frequently putting piety in antithesis to morality,
he was at last accused of being an impious and irreligious man. He now
puts Philo Junius forward to explain his religious views, who says, in
Letter 54: "These candid critics never remember any thing he says in
honor of our holy religion, though it is true that one of his leading
arguments is made to rest 'upon the internal evidence which the purest
of all religions carries with it.' I quote his words, and conclude from
them that he is a true and hearty Christian--_in substance_, not in
_ceremony_--though possibly he may not agree with my reverend lords the
bishops, or with the head of the Church, 'that prayers are morality, or
that kneeling is religion.'"
That is, Junius was a Christian who, upon moral principles, did not say
his prayers, and who thought that forms were no part of religion. In
other words, if the highest morality was Christianity, he claimed to be
a Christian, and would not stoop "to reconcile the sanctimonious forms
of religion with the utter destruction of morality."
This, too, was Mr. Paine's Christianity. In a national and moral sense
he uses the term with approbation, but when in a theological sense he
disowns it. He says, in Crisis, ii: "This ingratitude may suit a tory,
or the _unchristian_ peevishness of a fallen Quaker, but none else." In
Crisis, i, he says: "I wish, with all the devotion of a Christian, that
the names of whig and tory may never more be mentioned." To the Quakers
he says: "Call not coldness of soul religion, nor put the _bigot_ in the
place of the _Christian_." In Common Sense he says: "For myself, I fully
and conscientiously believe that it is the will of the Almighty that
there should be a diversity of religious opinions among us. It affords a
larger field for our Christian kindness." And again: "This new world
hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious
liberty from every part of Europe.... In this extensive quarter of the
globe, we forget the narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the
extent of England), and carry our friendship on a larger scale; _we
claim brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the
generosity of the sentiment_."
The above are a few of the many passages in which he indorses
Christianity. But Christian here means only its moral phase or
principles, and these principles exalted by the feeling of universal
brotherhood. But in a theological sense he uses the term very
differently, and by keeping this fact in view, he is readily understood,
and there is only the contradiction which the use of the word by common
consent carries with it. In the Age of Reason, Conclusion, he says: "Of
all the systems of religion that ever were invented there is none more
derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to
reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called
Christianity."
* * * * *
They both had the same views of Jesus. Mr. Paine says in the Age of
Reason, part i: "Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most
distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a
virtuous and amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced
was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality
had been preached by Confucius and by some of the Greek philosophers
many years before, and by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all
ages, it has not been exceeded by any.... He preached most excellent
morality, and the equality of man; but he preached also against the
corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him
the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of the priesthood." And
between the Romans and the Jews "this virtuous reformer and
revolutionist lost his life."
Junius, near the close of his last letter but one, boldly affirms Jesus
a _man_. He says: "The holy author of our religion was seen in the
company of sinners, but it was his gracious purpose to convert them from
their sins. _Another man_ [the king], who, in the _ceremonies_ of our
faith, might give lessons to the great enemy of it [the devil] upon
different principles, keeps much the same company."
* * * * *
Neither Mr. Paine nor Junius were superstitious. And first of Paine. In
Crisis, i, he says: "I have as little _superstition_ in me as any man
living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God
Almighty will not give up, to military destruction, a people," etc.
Junius says, in Letter 36, note: "Every coward pretends to be
planet-struck." And in Letter 49, satirizing Lord Bute, he says: "When
that noxious planet approaches England, he never fails to bring plague
and pestilence along with him." In Letter 67 he says: "Superstition is
certainly not the characteristic of this age; yet some men are bigoted
in politics who are _infidels_ in religion. I do not despair of making
them ashamed of their credulity."
* * * * *
Above, Junius also casts an aspersion upon the term _infidel_. Mr. Paine
was very tender upon this point, and could not bear to be taunted with
_infidelity_. He says: "Infidelity is believing falsely. If what
Christians believe is not true, it is the Christians that are the
infidels."--Remarks on R. Hall's sermon. In the Examination of the
Prophecies, he concludes with this sentence, emphasized as follows: "HE
THAT BELIEVES IN THE STORY OF CHRIST, IS AN INFIDEL TO GOD." He also
defines infidelity as being unfaithful to one's own convictions. In the
Age of Reason, part i, he says: "Infidelity consists in _professing_ to
believe what he does not believe." He also uses the word as synonymous
with atheist, in his Discourse to the Theophilanthropists, as will be
seen by reference to page 163 of this book.
* * * * *
I have heretofore given the views of Junius on _Prayer_. See page 172.
It now remains to give Mr. Paine's views. In his Letter to Samuel Adams
he says: "A man does not serve God when he prays, for it is himself he
is trying to serve; and as to hiring or paying men to pray, as if the
Deity needed instruction, it is, in my opinion, an abomination."
* * * * *
They both believe in the divine justice of retribution and future
punishment. Junius says: "The divine justice of retribution seems now to
have begun its progress. Deliberate treachery entails punishment upon
the traitor. There is no possibility of escaping it."--Let. 66. "A
death-bed repentance seldom reaches to restitution."--Dedication.
Mr. Paine says, in Crisis, ii, to Lord Howe: "How many you have thus
privately sacrificed we know not, and the account can only be settled in
another world." And in Crisis, v, to the same man, he says: "You may,
perhaps, be unwilling to be serious, but this destruction of the goods
of Providence, this havoc of the human race, and this sowing the world
with mischief, must be accounted for to him who made and governs it."
But I will give a positive affirmation of the fact. In the Age of
Reason, near the close of the Second Part, he says: "The existence of an
Almighty power is sufficiently demonstrated to us.... We must know,
also, that the power that called us into being can, if he pleases, and
when he pleases, call us to account for the manner in which we have
lived here; and therefore, without seeking any other motive for the
belief, it is rational to believe that he will, for we know beforehand
that he can.... The probability that we may be called to account
hereafter, will, to a reflecting mind, have the influence of belief; for
it is not our belief or unbelief that can make or unmake the fact. As
this is the state we are in, and which it is proper we should be in, as
free agents, it is the fool only, and not the philosopher or even the
prudent man, that would live as if there were no God."
* * * * *
Religiously, he can quite properly be classed with Theodore Parker. He
stands close at his side, and, having preceded him, a shoulder higher.
Yet, in this regard, Mr. Parker treats him with contempt.
* * * * *
The reader will be pleased to read the following letters; the one from
Horace Seaver to Mr. Parker, and the reply:
_Boston_, January 11, 1843.
REV. AND DEAR SIR:--As chairman of the committee of arrangement
for the celebration of Thomas Paine's birth-day in this city, on
the 30th instant, I am instructed to perform the highly pleasing
duty of soliciting the honor of your company at the dinner; and to
say to you in addition, that it would give the committee great
pleasure, as well as many others of your personal friends, if your
health and time will allow you to comply with this invitation.
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
HORACE SEAVER.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_West Roxbury_, January 14, 1843.
DEAR SIR:--Your favor of the 11th instant came in my absence from
home, and I now hasten to reply to the invitation you offer me.
With the views I entertain of Mr. Paine's character in his later
years, I could not, consistently with my own sense of duty, join
with you in celebrating his birth-day. I feel grateful, truly so,
for the services rendered by his _political_ writings, and his
practical efforts in the cause of freedom; though with what I
understand to be the spirit of his writings on theology and
religion, I have not the smallest sympathy.
I am, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
THEODORE PARKER.
This is one arch-heretic trampling on his brother in the holy name of
religion. Yet the great work which Thomas Paine performed before Mr.
Parker was conceived in the womb of Time, made a Theodore Parker
possible. Parker stood on the shoulders of Thomas Paine, and he uttered
scarcely a thought on religion and theology which Mr. Paine had not
written before him. Mr. Parker translated DeWette, but Mr. Paine's
second part of the Age of Reason, as an original investigation and
critical examination of the Bible, will be read when Parker's
translation of DeWette is forgotten. The latter is a scholar's effort,
dry, voluminous, costly, and soon to be laid away forever; the former, a
friend's offering to mankind, brought within the reach of their
understanding and their means. As an argument it has never been equaled;
as a theological work it is fair and candid; as a religious work it
breathes the spirit of forbearance, kindness, morality, and brotherly
love. I have searched in vain to find the authority for Mr. Parker's
religious hatred to Thomas Paine. They taught the same morality and
religion, the same theology, the same retributive justice, and denounced
boldly the same errors in politics and religion; and differed only in
this that Mr. Parker said his prayers in public, and Mr. Paine in
private. The hatred to Mr. Paine is perhaps inherited, and we stand in
awe of him as of the devil, without a reason and without knowing why.
The Egyptian children still startle at the name of "Bonaparte;" the
American children at the name of Thomas Paine; and Mr. Parker never
outgrew this superstition of his youth. But the historian may safely
record: _Without Thomas Paine, there would have been no Theodore
Parker_.
* * * * *
The reader can not fail to see the substantial elements of the Quaker
character in Junius, if we let Mr. Paine define it. In the Age of
Reason, second part, he says: "The only sect that has not persecuted are
the Quakers, and the only reason that can be given for it is, that they
are rather Deists than Christians. They do not believe much about Jesus
Christ, and they call the Scriptures a dead letter."
The Quakers have no priesthood. With them the power to teach is the
immediate gift of God, and they speak as they are moved by the Spirit,
and what they say is by the inspiration of the inner light. They have
neither pulpit nor church, and in their meeting there is neither
ceremony nor song, nor the dull routine of stated prayers. They oppose
war, slavery, intemperance, litigation, extravagance, profanity, and
priestcraft. Dancing and dressing in the fashion of the day they
forbid. Their religion consists in morality; not in ceremony and show.
They hate a bishop as they hate a tyrant, and they hold an honest man
the noblest work of God. What could be more like Junius than this? But
if this does not satisfy the reader the evidence of Junius himself would
have little weight. But he positively affirms the principles of the
Quakers as the true religion, and this ought to satisfy the most
doubtful. At the close of Letter 41, he says: "An _honest_ man, _like
the true religion_, appeals to the understanding, or modestly confides
_in the internal evidences_ of his conscience. The _impostor_ employs
_force_ instead of argument, imposes silence when he can not convince,
and _propagates his character by the sword_." This proves Junius to be a
Quaker, in principle. No one can mistake the expression: "The internal
evidences of the conscience," which often comes so forcibly from Junius.
And says Paine also: "As for morality, the knowledge of it exists in
every man's conscience." Were an artist called upon to produce a picture
of Junius' moral, political, and religious character, he could give no
shade or stroke which he could not find full and distinct in the living
character of Mr. Paine.
Although Thomas Paine was not a professed Quaker, yet the rigid Quaker
principles of moral conduct spoke out in every action; and while he did
not spare their errors, he spoke highly of them as a sect. He chastised
them with an unsparing hand, but it was in friendship, not in revenge.
He loved their austere worship, he sought their society, he walked in
their ways, and often paid them a tribute of praise. In short, by birth
he was a Quaker, but by profession not. He was himself, an original man
thrown out upon earth, born for a purpose, which he fulfilled.
But the moral character of Junius was the same; he proves it so in a
hundred different ways; in his pride of character, in his love of
justice, in his sympathies for the people, in his declaration of human
rights, in the austerity of his morals, in his faith in the interior
evidence of the conscience, in his hatred to bad men and bad measures,
in his moral courage to attack the strongholds of political corruption.
No one but a man having a double portion of Quaker principles and Quaker
spirit could talk as did Junius to the king, unmasking him before the
public, and exposing his weakness, wickedness, folly, and stupidity. And
herein nature comes powerfully in to my aid in my argument. In fact, it
is my only object to trace the lines of argument which nature has drawn,
and never to descend to art.
* * * * *
Says Mr. Paine: "It sometimes happens, as well in writing as in
conversation, that a person lets slip an expression that serves to
unravel what he intends to conceal." I will take him at his word and
quote two short passages of his own, giving a few strokes of his
personal history: "If I have anywhere expressed myself over-warmly, 'tis
from a fixed, immovable hatred I have, and ever had, to cruel men and
cruel measures. I have likewise an aversion to monarchy, as being too
debasing to the dignity of man, but I never troubled others with my
notions till very lately, nor ever published a syllable in England in my
life. What I write is pure nature, and my pen and my soul have ever
gone together. My writings I have always given away, reserving only the
expense of printing and paper, and sometimes not even that. I never
courted either fame or interest, and my manner of life, to those who
know it, will justify what I say. My study is to be useful."
The above was thrown into the body of Crisis, ii, and addressed to Lord
Howe. Let us examine its separate counts:
I. "Hatred to cruel men and cruel measures." See on this head the
_hatred_ of Junius to the _tyrant_ in any form, to the "hoary lecher,"
Lord Irnham, to the "_monsters_" of the house of Bedford, and the "worst
man in the kingdom," Lord Mansfield.
II. "An aversion to monarchy, as being too debasing to the dignity of
man." This is the key-note to Junius.
III. "Never troubled others with my notions till very lately." This was
dated January 13, 1777, just one year after Common Sense, and just five
years after the last Letter of Junius. _Very lately_ is an indefinite
expression, and is meant to pave the way for the next, which was
designed to mislead the unwary, and here we see unmistakable evidence of
Junius.
IV. "I never _published_ a syllable in England in my life." When
Woodfall was prosecuted for publishing Junius' Letter to the king, the
jury found him "_guilty of publishing only_." Then Junius, whoever he
was, never published a syllable of the Letters. But Mr. Paine wrote a
pamphlet, "The Case of the Excise Officers," while in England, and it
was published by a Mr. Lee. To the unthinking, the sentence: "I never
published a syllable in England in my life," would be proof at first
that he never wrote for the press, but a moment's thought will show it
to be an innocent subterfuge. But why this subterfuge, if Mr. Paine was
not Junius, and he had not yet a work to perform in England? If not
Junius, what is the meaning of it? Why did he say it? The reader must
answer.
V. "My writings I have always given away." Junius gave to Mr. Woodfall
the whole of his Letters. See his Preface.
VI. "I never courted either fame or interest." Says Junius: "To write
for profit, without taxing the press; to write for fame and be unknown;
to support the intrigues of faction, and be disowned by every party in
the kingdom, are contradictions," etc. That is, he was charged with
writing for fame and interest, and he thus contradicts it.
VII. "What I write is pure nature." Thus, Junius says: "The works of a
master require no index, his features and coloring are taken from
nature;" and a hundred other examples could be given.
VIII. "My study is to be useful." Thus also Junius: "Is there no merit
in dedicating my life to the information of my fellow-subjects? He is
not paid for his labor, and certainly has a right to choose his
employment."
It is thus I could take every statement of Thomas Paine, either of
previous life, private purpose, or public principle, and find its
counterpart in Junius. This could not be done were not the two
characters the same person. Take again, for example, the statement in
Crisis, xv. Speaking of the part he took in the revolution, he says:
I. "So far as my endeavors could go, they have all been directed to
conciliate the affections, unite the interests, and draw and keep the
mind of the country together; (II) and the better to assist in this
foundation work of the revolution, I have avoided all places of profit
or office, either in the State I live in or in the United States, kept
myself at a distance from all parties and party connections, and even
disregarded all private and inferior concerns; and when we take into
view the great work which we have gone through, and feel, as we ought to
feel, the first importance of it, we shall then see that the little
wranglings and indecent contentions of personal parley are as
dishonorable to our characters as they are injurious to our purpose.
(III) It was the cause of America that made me an author. The force with
which it struck my mind, and the dangerous condition the country
appeared to me in, by courting an impossible and unnatural
reconciliation with those who were determined to reduce her, instead of
striking out into the only line that could cement and save her--A
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE--made it impossible for me, feeling as I
did, to be silent: (IV) and if in the course of more than seven years I
have rendered her any service, I have likewise added something to the
reputation of literature, by freely and disinterestedly employing it in
the great cause of mankind, and showing that there may be genius without
prostitution."
Compare now the above with Junius, as follows: I. "It is time for those
who really mean the _Cause_ and the _People_, who have no view to
private advantage, and who have virtue enough to prefer the general
good of the community to the gratification of personal animosities: it
is time for such men to interpose. Let us try whether these fatal
dissensions may not yet be reconciled, or if that be impracticable, let
us guard at least against the worst effects of division, and endeavor to
persuade these furious partisans, if they will not consent to _draw
together_, to be separately useful to that _cause_ which they all
pretend to be attached to." II. "To write for profit without taxing the
press, to write for fame and to be unknown, to support the intrigues of
factions and to be disowned as a dangerous anxiliary by every party in
the kingdom are contradictions which the minister must reconcile before
I forfeit my credit with the public." III. "It was the cause of America
that made me an author," says Paine. This is true of Junius; for the
troubles which called him forth are well known to be those of America.
But he would never have been known, perhaps, had he not written _Common
Sense_, which was published anonymously, and was at first attributed to
Benjamin Franklin. IV. "The reputation of these papers is an honorable
pledge for my attachment to the people.... These letters, my lord, are
read in other countries and in other languages. For my own part, I claim
no merit from endeavoring to do a service to my fellow-subjects. I have
done it to the best of my understanding, and without looking for the
approbation of other men, my conscience is satisfied."
REVIEW.
Let us now retrace our steps, and see how strong a case is made out.
1. Twelve facts in the life of Mr. Paine shown to be the same as those
in Junius.
2. An apparent contradiction proven to be a parallel fact.
3. They both represent Quaker principles.
4. They have the same views of conscience.
5. Both believe in the divine justice of retribution.
6. Both believe in future punishment.
7. Both have the same views of prayer.
8. Both have the same dislike to the word infidel.
9. Both have the same opinion of Jesus of Nazareth.
10. Both have the same views of Christianity.
11. Both use the term Christian the same.
12. Both had a special dislike to Methodism.
13. Both were inveterate enemies to priestcraft.
14. Both made a wide difference between piety and morality.
15. Both had the same views of the Catholic faith.
16. Both ridiculed "Peter."
17. Both affirmed that they did not persecute for religious opinion.
18. Both hated a narrow system in politics or religion.
19. Both had the same views of "religion."
20. Both had the same views of superstition.
21. Both had the same views of atheism.
22. Both had the same views of providence.
23. Both had the same views of the theater.
24. Both detested gamblers and gambling.
25. Both had the same opinion of the English Constitution.
26. Both were extremely cautious.
27. Both were extremely politic.
28. Both loved method.
29. Both evinced the same kind of method in writing.
30. Both had the same views of the origin of military governments.
31. Both had the same views of party politics.
32. Neither would take part in party politics.
33. Both had the same pride of character.
34. Both had the same views of the English army.
35. Both loved free thought.
36. Both thought alike of suspicion.
37. Both expressed the same views of antagonism.
38. Both placed personal interest above strict moral right.
39. Both thought alike of oaths.
40. They had the same opinion of courts and courtiers.
41. They considered the termination of the Seven Years' War a
distinguished period, and dated the misfortunes and establishment of
tyranny in England from that period.
42. They both had the same opinion of Lord North.
43. Both had the same opinion of Lord Mansfield.
44. Both had the same views of precedent.
45. Both had the same opinion of lawyers.
46. Both had the same views of the cause of America.
47. Both had the same views of the minority in England.
48. And herein the same views of Lord Chatham.
49. Both traced the rights of man back to their origin.
50. Both express themselves alike in regard to laws in general.
51. Both express themselves alike in regard to the _game law_.
52. Both declare _law to be king_.
53. They had the same predilections in regard to politics.
54. They were neither of them partisans.
55. They were both practical.
56. Both often appealed to experience and the evidence of facts.
57. Both assert the mind becomes what it contemplates.
58. Both were deeply read in the "_history of the human heart_."
59. Both delight in charging _bastardy_.
60. Secretiveness was a ruling characteristic.
61. Both had the same opinion of moderate men.
62. They were both enthusiasts.
63. Both were too proud to be vain or to flatter.
64. Both placed too high an estimate on the judgment of the masses.
65. Both were excessively hopeful.
66. Personal honor unparalleled in history.
67. Both express themselves alike in regard to avarice and the miser.
68. Both often assert that "language fails."
69. Both have the same method of argumentation, and hereunder many
parallels are given.
70. Both have the same style, and hereunder many parallels are given.
71. More than sixty parallel expressions and figures of speech are
given.
72. They both use the same kind of figures the most frequently.
73. They use the figure in the same manner, and usually one at the close
of an article.
74. Both use the same facts and figure to illustrate national honor.
75. The same rythm in style is common to both.
76. The same alliteration.
77. The same method of bringing the subject into one view.
78. The wandering from the point and mentioning the fact.
79. The same threat, command, and warning.
80. The same method of ridicule and satire.
81. The same use of diminutives.
82. The same sacrifice of grammar to conciseness.
83. The same majesty and grandeur of style.
84. _Common Sense parallels with Junius_, in many ways, and hereunder
more than forty examples, which to repeat would be to rewrite them.
85. They were both revolutionists.
86. They both dedicated their life to the same object: to remove some
wrong, to do mankind some good.
87. They both attacked the King of England and his ministry in the same
spirit and language.
88. Both had the same opinion of bribery at elections.
89. They were both political reformers, following the same principle
without pay and above party.
* * * * *
{190}In the above argument I have given nearly three hundred parallel facts
and characteristics, many of them of such a nature that it would be at
variance with _nature_ itself to suppose them to belong to different
men. But I have also searched for a _solitary fact_ which would in the
least render Mr. Paine and Junius incompatible, and _have found it not_.
This is a task I hope some reader, who has some means and ample time,
will devote a year or two to investigate. My case is much stronger than
I hoped even to make it. I have by no means given all the facts and
parallels, but where one would answer, I put it in the place of several
on the same subject. I have labored to condense--not to expand; I have,
therefore, commented but little, and reasoned scarcely any. There is no
reasoning which is superior to the simple declaration of facts. It
should be the office of the writer to present _facts_ to A REASONING
WORLD. The literary world has had enough of the whirlwind of words; it
wants a deluge of facts. Then each mind will take care of itself, if
worth preserving. To this end I subjoin Lord Macaulay's five reasons why
Sir Philip Francis was Junius:
"Was he the author of the Letters of Junius? Our own firm belief
is that he was. The external evidence is, we think, such as would
support a verdict in a civil--nay, in a criminal proceeding. The
handwriting of Junius is the very peculiar handwriting of Francis,
slightly disguised. As to the position, pursuits, and connections
of Junius, the following are the most important facts, which can
be considered as clearly proved: First, that he was acquainted
with the technical forms of the Secretary of State's office;
secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of
the War Office; thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended
debates in the House of Lords, and took notes of
speeches--particularly of the speeches of Lord Chatham; fourthly,
that he bitterly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to the
place of Deputy Secretary at War; fifthly, that he was bound by
some strong tie to the first Lord Holland.... Now here are five
marks, all of which ought to be found in Junius. They are all five
found in Francis. We do not believe that more than two of them can
be found in any other person whatever. If this argument does not
settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on
circumstantial evidence." [In answer to this, see appendix.]
{191}If that kind and amount of evidence would hang a man in the time of
Macaulay, the times have so changed that it takes far stronger evidence
to hang men now than then. That kind of evidence is absolutely worthless
for two reasons: first, the facts alleged in the separate counts are
neither of them necessary to the production of Junius; and, secondly,
they would prove nothing if they were, for they might be common to a
hundred men, and that they were _not_ would be matter of fact to prove.
Even Macaulay makes this rest on his own _belief_. "We do not
_believe_," he says, "that more than two of them can be found in any
other person whatever." But the fact is, they are absolutely
"imaginary," and not at all necessary.
"The internal evidence," he says, "_seems_ to point in the same way."
First, he acknowledges that Francis, as a writer, is inferior to Junius,
but not "_decidedly_," and then he goes on to say: "One of the strongest
reasons for believing that Francis was Junius, is the _moral_
resemblance between the two men." Macaulay now sets up a character for
Junius, the most of which is not to be found in Junius, and says it is
like Francis. It is thus he imposes on the credulity of the ignorant.
But I give his words, that the reader may investigate for himself:
"It is not difficult, from the letters which, under _various
signatures_, are known to have been written by Junius, and from his
dealings with Woodfall and others, to form a tolerable correct _notion_
of his character." I call the attention of the reader to the above
sentence, and have emphasized the word "_notion_," and the phrase
"_various signatures_." Of the former, I would remark that a _notion_ of
one's character falls far short of a judgment, and in a criticism is not
only trifling, but contemptible. In regard to "various signatures," I
will let Junius himself answer: "The encouragement given to a _multitude
of spurious, mangled publications_ of the 'Letters of Junius,' persuades
me that a complete edition, corrected and improved by the author, will
be favorably received."--Preface. In this volume his signature is
Junius, and occasionally, when he wishes to explain the meaning, or
defend the principle, he puts forward Philo Junius, but _never without
this cause_. I now proceed to give the character which Macaulay has
picked up--_I know not where_:
"He was clearly a man not destitute of real patriotism and
magnanimity--a man whose vices were not of a sordid kind. But he
must also have been a man in the highest degree arrogant and
insolent--a man prone to malevolence, and prone to the error of
mistaking his malevolence for public virtue. 'Doest thou well to
be angry?' was the question asked in olden time of the Hebrew
prophet, and he answered: 'I do well.' This was evidently the
temper of Junius, and to this cause we attribute the savage
cruelty which disgraces several of his Letters. No man is so
merciless as he who, under a strong self-delusion, confounds his
antipathies with his duties. It may be added that Junius, though
allied with the democratic party by common enmities, was the very
opposite of a democratic politician. While attacking individuals
with a ferocity which perpetually violated all the laws of
literary warfare, he regarded the most defective parts of the old
constitution with a respect amounting to pedantry; pleaded the
cause of Old Saurum with fervor, and contemptuously told the
capitalists of Manchester and Leeds that, if they wanted votes,
they might buy land and become freeholders of Lancashire and
Yorkshire. All this, we believe, might stand, with scarcely any
change, for a character of Philip Francis."
Thus much Macaulay. Where he got the above character I am unable to
tell, unless out of his own imagination. Before I answer it, I will give
another perversion of the truth. Dr. Goodrich concludes his article on
Junius as follows: "Junius continued his labors, with various ability,
but with little success, nearly two year's longer; until, in the month
of January, 1772, the king remarked to a friend in confidence: 'Junius
is known, and will write no more.' Such proved to be the fact. His last
performance was dated January 21, 1772, three years to a day from his
first letter to the printer of the Public Advertiser. Within a _few
months_, SIR PHILIP FRANCIS was appointed to one of the highest stations
of _profit and trust_ in India, at a distance of fifteen thousand miles
from the seat of English politics!"
The "_few months_" in the above sentence is just a year and a half after
the king "remarked in confidence," etc. But Francis did not go to India
for more than two and a half years after. In March, 1772, he resigned
his clerkship in the war department, in consequence of a quarrel with
Lord Barrington, the new Minister at War. He then left England, and
traveled on the continent the remainder of the year; in the June
following he was appointed one of the Council of Bengal, with a salary
of £10,000, and in the summer of 1774 went to India. That fall Thomas
Paine came to America. It is thus the phrase "_a few months_," artfully
put into a sentence in connection with the _supposed_ fact that the king
had found out Junius, and had bribed him to stop writing, would mislead
the mind, and pervert a reasonable conclusion. This is a trick of the
pen, and to which no honorable mind will descend. The fact is, Francis
would never have been thought of as Junius, had he not been an intimate
friend and schoolmate of Mr. Woodfall's.
{195}But the above argument, summed up by Lord Macaulay, is the
strongest on record for any man till now. I was not aware of its
weakness till now. I supposed there was a plausible argument at least.
To be answered, it needs only to be appended to this. I speak without
vanity, for the argument is nature's own, not mine. I will honor it,
therefore, with a rebuttal from Junius himself. In Letter 44 he says: "I
may quit the service, but it would be absurd to suspect me of desertion.
The reputation of these papers is an honorable pledge for my attachment
to the people. To sacrifice a respected character, and to renounce the
esteem of society, requires more than Mr. Wedderburn's resolution; and
though in him it was rather a profession than a desertion of his
principles (I speak tenderly of this gentleman, for, when treachery is
in question, I think we should make allowances for a Scotchman), yet we
have seen him in the House of Commons, overwhelmed with confusion, and
almost bereft of his faculties. But in truth, sir, I have left no room
for an accommodation with the piety of St. James'. My offenses are not
to be redeemed by recantation or repentance: on one side, our warmest
patriots would disclaim me as a burthen to their honest ambition; on the
other, the vilest prostitution, if Junius could descend to it, would
lose its natural merit and influence in the cabinet, and treachery be no
longer a recommendation to the royal favor."
There is not, among the dregs or scummings of human nature, a character
so false and vile as to write that, and then do as Francis did, or do as
the king of England did, if he believed him to be Junius. Nature rebels
at such an argument, founded on the facts of the case. It is by a
species of subterfuge, or literary legerdemain, exhibiting some facts
and hiding others, calling the attention to some trifling thing, and
then concealing the truth of the matter, is all that has ever rendered
the argument in favor of Francis of any consequence with the public.
There is more, for example, in the one word _Lord_, placed just in
front of Macaulay, than in any argument he may give on the subject. In
fact, that word imposes on the mind an authority not easily resisted. It
obscures the reason, quiets investigation, destroys the desire to
search, beguiles thought, puts the mind to sleep, and the reader, like a
young bird with eyes closed and mouth open, takes the food from out the
old one's mouth, gulps it down, and goes to sleep. It is thus the
student and the professor take, on authority, what they have no business
to, and do what they never would do, did their own souls not bow basely
at the shrine of some literary Baal. It is thus in politics, religion,
history, law, philosophy, criticism, belles-lettres, science--whichever
way we turn we find the false god and his worshipers. When the student
and the professor come to find Mr. Macaulay to be a man of much talent
in a certain direction, but by no means a literary god to be worshiped
as infallible, they will lose faith in his assertions which come without
proof.
It had been my intention to throw a few hints into the Introduction upon
external and internal evidence, as it is called, but I concluded to
defer it till now, because the remarks and the illustrations would then
be thrown together.
In a criticism of this kind, but little confidence can be placed in
external evidence, because it all comes within the realm of _art_ or
_accident_, and any scientific truth can not be founded thereon. For
example, Macaulay says: "The handwriting of Junius is the very peculiar
handwriting of Francis, slightly disguised." Handwriting is an _art_,
just like chopping wood or playing on the piano. And to tell who wrote
an article by the "peculiar" handwriting, is about as safe as to hazard
an opinion upon who is chopping wood by the "peculiar" swing of the ax.
Nor does the same individual always write in the same style or manner.
Such proof is good for nothing. And this is the nature of all external
evidence, and is the cause of the endless litigation in our courts. A
man may go on the stand and swear to a lie. I have known men do it. Then
we draw inferences from the associations of men, which the real facts of
the case might not warrant. The accidents of place and position, of
friendships and age, of times and circumstances, and even of existence,
all may or may not, in a world full of men, have bearing on the facts
which form the opinion of an outside spectator. For example, Francis,
_it is said_, "did not _deny_ that he was Junius." If he had denied or
affirmed he was, it would have proved just the same. It belongs to the
most worthless kind of external evidence. A naturalist does not ask his
horse whether or not he is a horse. If the horse could speak and say to
his master, "I am a jackass," the master would be a fool to believe him.
It is thus persons often put on a character in a word or two which does
not belong to them, but nature takes care to always reveal the true
character, if they say much. Now if we could get within the meaning of
the words, get behind them to the spirit of their author, we would be
getting at the very soul of evidence. This would be true, and we could
found a scientific conclusion upon it, because _natural_ and not
_artificial_. This is internal evidence. At present, this kind of
evidence is known only in such a criticism as this, for the soul of the
author shines out of his work, I care not who he is. We may, for aught
I know, write our history on all we touch. If so, science will some day
give the world a knowledge of it. It is then external evidence will have
ceased.
In a work of this kind, it is incumbent on the critic to ascertain,
first, the spirit and object of the work, and then to see if it be
inconsistent with itself. If it is not, then the character he finds will
be true to nature, and he can not go wrong in his conclusions. There is
a passage in Letter 53 on this very point. Junius is speaking of the
Rev. Mr. Horne, and says: "He repeatedly affirms, or intimates, at
least, that he knows the author of these Letters. With what color of
truth, then, can he pretend 'that I am nowhere to be encountered but in
a newspaper?' I shall leave him to his suspicions. It is not necessary
that I should confide in the honor and discretion of a man who always
seems to hate me with as much rancor as if I had formerly been his
friend. But he asserts that he has traced me through a variety of
signatures. To make the discovery of any importance to his purpose, he
should have proved either that the fictitious character of Junius has
not been consistently supported, or that the author has maintained
different principles under different signatures. I can not recall to my
memory the numberless trifles I have written; _but I rely on the
consciousness of my own_ INTEGRITY, and defy him to fix any colorable
charge of _inconsistency_ upon me."
* * * * *
Now, what have I shown? It is that the character of Thomas Paine, as
found in his writings (not in what people say about him), is the very
same character, with all its shades and coloring, which is found in the
LETTERS OF JUNIUS. This is shown by the best and strongest evidence
under the sun, _internal_ evidence. I have purposely avoided all
external evidence, from the mere fact of its worthlessness, inasmuch as
it is that kind of evidence which itself needs proof. If, for example,
Thomas Paine had said to some one: "I wrote Junius," it would be no
evidence to me, and would weigh just the same as if he had said: "I did
not write Junius." It is external evidence, and may be a lie, for lying
is common to mankind. It is that kind of evidence which needs proof. But
nature never makes two great characters alike, nor at the same time. She
is prodigal of varieties. And if two characters seem alike, it is
because of their insignificance; the orbit of their life is so small it
can not be measured. But when a Paine, or a Parker, or a Luther, or a
Jesus, is let loose on earth, they each describe an orbit so large and
peculiar there is no mistaking it for any thing else the world ever
exhibits among men. And in their earthly pilgrimage, however seemingly
erratic in their course, nature holds them true to her purposes, and
holds up no lie therein to deceive the senses. She is true, also, to
_herself_, in giving to us these world's redeemers.
My argument, then, is, Nature would not be natural if Thomas Paine were
not Junius, _a mere absurdity_. But let us suppose he is not. Then, to
make out the case, strong evidence of the same _internal_ kind would
have to be produced in favor of this supposition. But I have searched
for a solitary fact which would even tend to contradict my hypothesis,
and have not found it. And I frankly confess, had I found it, this book
would not have been written. Reader, search for it yourself, and, when
found, publish it to the world, for the world is suffering for the want
of truth. And though my conclusions be false, if I have been the means
of revealing the truth, I shall not have written in vain.
PART II.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
It is with painful feelings I now call your attention to the famous
document which sets forth the political creed of the United States. More
than once my pen has refused to set about this work, but I now ask: Who
wrote the original Declaration of Independence? I answer boldly, Thomas
Paine. To prove this, my method is the same as with Junius, and the
prejudices of the united world shall not intimidate me.
It is not my purpose to revive the old and long-forgotten controversy
about the authorship of this document. Enough to say, volumes have been
written to prove that it was _not_ Jefferson's. But the method and
object of a negative criticism I scorn. If it can not be shown to be
some other man's, then let the claimant wear his honors; he certainly
did not come by them meanly or dishonorably; they were forced upon him.
My evidence will be such as to exclude the possibility of even literary
theft in Jefferson, and that it is, as a whole, the work of the author
of Common Sense, and can not possibly be the work of any body else. This
is a bold assertion, and a little out of my turn, but my object is to
raise the strongest _doubt_ of the truth of what I assert in the mind of
my reader, so as to enlist his attention, and hold me to the proof.
The method of my argument is as follows:
First, to show wherein this document is exactly like Mr. Paine; and,
Secondly, wherein it is entirely unlike Mr. Jefferson.
The points wherein they would agree are necessarily thrown out, and
count nothing on either side. For example, the principles therein
contained may be common to both, and can have no weight in an argument.
It is said, in defense of this paper being Mr. Jefferson's, that the
"Summary View" of his submitted to, but not passed by the Virginia
Delegate Convention in 1774, contained the "_germs_" of the Declaration.
This I do not admit, but if it did, it would prove nothing, for so did
the writings of John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, and Samuel Adams, and
especially of James Otis. A thousand men in America had, perhaps,
expressed the cardinal doctrine of equal rights, and that the British
Parliament had usurped them. There is nothing peculiar nor individual in
this; but when we find one man only who makes a specialty of the
_Declaration_, it attracts attention, and must have great weight when
supported by a multitude of other special facts, all pointing in the
same direction. I, therefore, go to show:
First, Common Sense was written by Mr. Paine for the sole purpose of
declaring independence, and, with this document in view. I have
heretofore reviewed Common Sense, beginning on page 156 of this book. If
it were practicable for the reader to read the whole of Common Sense at
this time, it would render my labor much less; but as this may not be
the case, I will now give the whole of the third division of that paper,
being:
"THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF THE AMERICAN AFFAIRS.
"In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts,
plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries
to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of
prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his
feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put _on_, or
rather that he will not put _off_ the true character of a man, and
generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.
"Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between
England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the
controversy from different motives, and with various designs; but
all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed.
Arms, as the last resource, must decide the contest; the appeal
was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the
challenge.
"It has been reported of the late Mr. Pelham (who, though an able
minister, was not without his faults), that on his being attacked
in the House of Commons, on the score, that his measures were only
of a temporary kind, replied "_they will last my time_." Should a
thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies in the present
contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered by future
generations with detestation.
"The sun never shone on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the
affair of a city, a county, a province, or a kingdom, but of a
continent--of at least one-eighth part of the habitable globe.
'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are
virtually involved in the contest, and they will be more or less
affected even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is
the seed-time of continental union, faith, and honor. The least
fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin
on the tender rind of a young oak; the wound will enlarge with the
tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters.
"By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era for
politics is struck; a new method of thinking hath arisen. All
plans, proposals, etc., prior to the nineteenth of April, _i. e._,
to the commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacs of last
year; which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now.
Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the
question then terminated in one and the same point, viz., a union
with Great Britain. The only difference between the parties was
the method of effecting it; the one proposing force, the other
friendship; but it hath so far happened that the first has failed,
and the second has withdrawn her influence.
"As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation,
which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as we
were, it is but right that we should examine the contrary side of
the argument, and inquire into some of the many material injuries
which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by being
connected with and dependent on Great Britain. To examine that
connection and dependence, on the principles of nature and common
sense, to see what we have to trust to, if separated, and what we
are to expect, if dependent.
"I have heard it asserted by some, that as America has flourished
under her former connection with Great Britain, the same
connection is necessary toward her future happiness, and will
always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than
this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child
has thrived upon milk, that it is never to have meat, or that the
first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the
next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I
answer roundly, that America would have flourished as much, and
probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with
her. The articles of commerce by which she has enriched herself,
are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while
eating is the custom of Europe.
"But she has protected us, say some. That she hath engrossed us is
true, and defended the continent at our expense, as well as her
own, is admitted, and she would have defended Turkey from the same
motives, viz., for the sake of trade and dominion.
"Alas! we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and made
large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted the protection
of Great Britain, without considering that her motive was
_interest_, not _attachment_; and that she did not protect us from
_our enemies_ on _our account_, but from _her enemies_ on _her own
account_, from those who had no quarrel with us on any _other
account_, and who will always be our enemies on the _same
account_. Let Britain waive her pretensions to the continent, or
the continent throw off the dependence, and we should be at peace
with France and Spain, were they at war with Britain. The miseries
of Hanover, last war, ought to warn us against connections.
"It hath lately been asserted in Parliament that the colonies have
no relation to each other, but through the parent country, _i.
e._, that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest,
are sister colonies by the way of England. This is certainly a
very roundabout way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest
and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it.
France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be, our enemies
as _Americans_, but as our being the _subjects of Great Britain_.
"But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame
upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor
savages make war upon their families; wherefore, the assertion, if
true, turns to her reproach. But it happens not to be true, or
only partly so; and the phrase _parent_, or _mother country_ hath
been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a
low, papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous
weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent
country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the
persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from _every part_
of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of
the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far
true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first
emigrants from home pursues their descendants still.
"In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow
limits of three hundred and sixty miles--the extent of
England--and carry our friendship on a larger scale. We claim
brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the
generosity of the sentiment.
"It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount
local prejudices, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A
man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will
naturally associate most with his fellow-parishioners--because
their interests, in many cases, will be common--and distinguish
him by the name of _neighbor_; if he meet him but a few miles from
home, he drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the
name of _townsman_; if he travel out of the county, and meets him
in any other, he forgets the minor division of street and town,
and calls him _countryman_--_i. e._, _countyman_; but if, in their
foreign excursions, they should associate in France, or any other
part of _Europe_, their local remembrance would be enlarged into
that of _Englishmen_. And, by a just parity of reasoning, all
Europeans meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe,
are _countrymen_; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when
compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger
scale which the divisions of street, town, and county do on the
smaller one--distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not
one-third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of
English descent. Wherefore, I reprobate the phrase of parent, or
mother country, applied to England only, as being false, selfish,
narrow, and ungenerous.
"But, admitting that we were all of English descent, what does it
amount to? Nothing. Britain, being now an open enemy, extinguishes
every other name and title; and to say that reconciliation is our
duty, is truly farcical. The first King of England, of the present
line--William the Conqueror--was a Frenchman, and half the peers
of England are descendants from the same country; wherefore, by
the same method of reasoning, England ought to be governed by
France.
"Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the
colonies--that, in conjunction, they might bid defiance to the
world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of war is uncertain,
neither do the expressions mean anything; for this continent would
never suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants to support the
British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
"Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defiance?
Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us
the peace and friendship of all Europe, because it is the interest
of all Europe to have America a _free port_. Her trade will always
be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her
from invaders.
"I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show a
single advantage that this continent can reap by being connected
with Great Britain. I repeat the challenge; not a single
advantage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market
in Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where
we will.
"But the injuries and disadvantages which we sustain by that
connection are without number; and our duty to mankind at large,
as well as to ourselves, instructs us to renounce the alliance,
because any submission to, or dependence on, Great Britain, tends
directly to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels,
and sets us at variance with nations, who would otherwise seek our
friendship, and against whom we have neither anger nor complaint.
As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial
connection with any part of it. It is the true interest of America
to steer clear of European contentions, which she never can do;
while, by her dependence on Britain, she is made the make-weight
in the scale of British politics.
"Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace;
and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign
power, the trade of America goes to ruin, _because of her
connection with Britain_. The next war may not turn out like the
last, and, should it not, the advocates for reconciliation now
will be wishing for separation then, because neutrality, in that
case, would be a safer convoy than a man-of-war. Every thing that
is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood of the slain,
the weeping voice of Nature, cries, '_'Tis time to part!_' Even
the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and
America, is a strong and natural proof that the authority of the
one over the other was never the design of Heaven. The time,
likewise, at which the continent was discovered, adds weight to
the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled increases the
force of it. The reformation was preceded by the discovery of
America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to open a sanctuary
to the persecuted in future years, when home should afford neither
friendship nor safety.
"The authority of Great Britain over this continent is a form of
government which, sooner or later, must have an end; and a serious
mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under the
painful and positive conviction that what he calls 'the present
constitution,' is merely temporary. As parents, we can have no
joy, knowing that _this government_ is not sufficiently lasting to
insure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity; and by a
plain method of argument, as we are running the next generation
into debt, we ought to do the work of it--otherwise we use them
meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line of our duty
rightly, we should take our children in our hand, and fix our
station a few years further into life. That eminence will present
a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices conceal from
our sight.
"Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offense, yet I
am inclined to believe that all those who espouse the doctrine of
reconciliation may be included within the following descriptions:
"Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men, who _can
not_ see; prejudiced men, who _will not_ see; and a certain set of
moderate men, who think better of the European world than it
deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will
be the cause of more calamities to this continent than all the
other three.
"It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene of
sorrow. The evil is not sufficiently brought to _their_ doors to
make _them_ feel the precariousness with which all American
property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us a few
moments to Boston; that seat of wretchedness will teach us wisdom,
and instruct us forever to renounce a power in whom we can have no
trust. The inhabitants of that unfortunate city, who, but a few
months ago, were in ease and affluence, have now no other
alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to
beg--endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue
within the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it.
In their present situation they are prisoners without the hope of
redemption, and in a general attack for their relief, they would
be exposed to the fury of both armies.
"Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offenses of
Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out,
'_Come, come; we shall be friends again for all this_.' But
examine the passions and feelings of mankind, bring the doctrine
of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me
whether you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the
power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you can
not do all these, then you are only deceiving yourselves, and, by
your delay, bringing ruin upon your posterity. Your future
connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will
be forced and unnatural, and, being formed only on the plan of
present convenience, will, in a little time, fall into a relapse
more wretched than the first. But if you say you can still pass
the violations over, then I ask, hath your house been burnt? Hath
your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and
children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have
you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the
ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a
judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still shake
hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of
husband, father, friend, or lover; and, whatever may be your rank
or title in life, you have the heart of a coward and the spirit of
a sycophant.
"This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, but trying them by
those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and without
which we should be incapable of discharging the social duties of
life or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to exhibit
horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to awaken us from
fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue determinately some
fixed object. It is not in the power of Britain or of Europe to
conquer America, if she does not conquer herself by _delay_ and
_timidity_. The present winter is worth an age if rightly
employed; but if lost or neglected, the whole continent will
partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which that
man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will, that
may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and useful.
"It is repugnant to reason and the universal order of things, to
all examples from former ages, to suppose that this continent can
longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine in
Britain do not think so. The utmost stretch of human wisdom can
not, at this time, compass a plan short of separation, which can
promise the continent even a year's security. Reconciliation is
_now_ a fallacious dream. Nature hath deserted the connection, and
art can not supply her place. For, as Milton wisely expresses,
'Never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly hate
have pierced so deep.'
"Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers
have been rejected with disdain; and only tended to convince us
that nothing flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy in kings more
than repeated petitioning--nothing hath contributed more than this
very measure to make the kings of Europe absolute. Witness Denmark
and Sweden. Wherefore, since nothing but blows will do, for God's
sake let us come to a final separation, and not leave the next
generation to be cutting throats under the violated, unmeaning
names of parent and child.
"To say they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary. We
thought so at the repeal of the stamp act; yet a year or two
undeceived us. As well may we suppose that nations, which have
been once defeated, will never renew the quarrel.
"As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to do
this continent justice. The business of it will soon be too
weighty and intricate to be managed with any tolerable degree of
convenience by a power so distant from us and so very ignorant of
us; for if they can not conquer us they can not govern us. To be
always running three or four thousand miles with a tale or a
petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which, when
obtained, requires five or six more to explain it in, will in a
few years be looked upon as folly and childishness. There was a
time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to
cease.
"Small islands, not capable of protecting themselves, are the
proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is
something absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetually
governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the
satellite larger than its primary planet; and as England and
America, with respect to each other, reverses the common order of
nature, it is evident that they belong to different systems:
England to Europe--America to itself.
"I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to
espouse the doctrine of separation and independence. I am clearly,
positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true
interest of this continent to be so; that every thing short of
_that_ is mere patchwork; that it can afford no lasting felicity;
that it is leaving the sword to our children and shrinking back at
a time when, going a little further, would have rendered this
continent the glory of the earth.
"As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination toward a
compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained worthy
the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the expense
of blood and treasure we have been already put to.
{213}"The object contended for ought always to bear some just
proportion to the expense. The removal of North, or the whole
detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have
expended. A temporary stoppage of trade was an inconvenience which
would have sufficiently balanced the repeal of all the acts
complained of, had such repeals been obtained; but if the whole
continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is
scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry
only. Dearly, dearly do we pay for the repeal of the acts if that
is all we fight for; for, in a just estimation, it is as great a
folly to pay a Bunker-hill price for law as for land. I have
always considered the independency of this continent as an event
which sooner or later must take place, and, from the late rapid
progress of the continent to maturity, the event can not be far
off. Wherefore, on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not
worth the while to have disputed a matter which time would have
finally redressed, unless we meant to be in earnest; otherwise, it
is like wasting an estate on a suit at law to regulate the
trespasses of a tenant whose lease is just expiring. No man was a
warmer wisher for a reconciliation than myself before the fatal
nineteenth of April, 1775,[A] but the moment the event of that day
was made known, I rejected the hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh
of England forever; and disdain the wretch that, with the
pretended title of _father of his people_, can unfeelingly hear of
their slaughter and composedly sleep with their blood upon his
soul.
"But admitting that matters were now made up, what would be the
event? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for several
reasons.
"1st. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the
king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of this
continent. And as he hath shown himself such an inveterate enemy
to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power, is
he, or is he not, a proper person to say to these colonies, '_You
shall make no laws but what I please?_' And is there any
inhabitant of America so ignorant as not to know that, according
to what is called the _present constitution_, this continent can
make no laws but what the king gives leave to? and is there any
man so unwise as not to see that (considering what has happened)
he will suffer no law to be made here but such as suits _his_
purpose? We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws in
America as by submitting to laws made for us in England. After
matters are made up (as it is called), can there be any doubt but
the whole power of the crown will be exerted to keep this
continent as low and humble as possible? Instead of going forward,
we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarreling or ridiculously
petitioning. We are already greater than the king wishes us to be,
and will he not hereafter endeavor to make us less? To bring the
matter to one point, is the power who is jealous of our prosperity
a proper power to govern us? Whoever says _No_ to this question is
an _independent_, for independency means no more than this,
whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the king, the
greatest enemy which this continent hath or can have, shall tell
us, '_There shall be no laws but such as I like_.'
"But the king, you will say, has a negative in England; the people
there can make no laws without his consent. In point of right and
good order, it is something very ridiculous that a youth of
twenty-one (which hath often happened) shall say to several
millions of people, older and wiser than himself, I forbid this or
that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline this sort
of reply, though I will never cease to expose the absurdity of it;
and only answer that, England being the king's residence and
America not makes quite another case. The king's negative _here_
is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can be in England;
for _there_ he will scarcely refuse his consent to a bill for
putting England into as strong a state of defense as possible, and
in America he would never suffer such a bill to be passed.
"America is only a secondary object in the system of British
politics--England consults the good of _this_ country no further
than it answers her _own_ purpose. Wherefore, her own interest
leads her to suppress the growth of _ours_ in every case which
doth not promote her advantage, or in the least interferes with
it. A pretty state we should soon be in under such a secondhand
government, considering what has happened! Men do not change from
enemies to friends by the alteration of a name; and in order to
show that reconciliation _now_ is a dangerous doctrine, I affirm
_that it would be policy in the king at this time to repeal the
acts, for the sake of reinstating himself in the government of the
provinces_; in order _that he may accomplish by craft and
subtlety, in the long run, what he can not do by force in the
short one_. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly related.
"2dly. That as even the best terms which we can expect to obtain
can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a kind of
government by guardianship, which can last no longer than till the
colonies come of age, so the general face and state of things, in
the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising. Emigrants of
property will not choose to come to a country whose form of
government hangs but by a thread, and which is every day tottering
on the brink of commotion and disturbance; and numbers of the
present inhabitants would lay hold of the interval to dispose of
their effects and quit the continent.
"But the most powerful of all arguments is, that nothing but
independence, _i. e._, a continental form of government, can keep
the peace of the continent and preserve it inviolate from civil
wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as
it is more than probable that it will be followed by a revolt
somewhere or other, the consequences of which may be far more
fatal than all the malice of Britain.
"Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity. (Thousands
more will probably suffer the same fate.) Those men have other
feelings than us who have nothing suffered. All they _now_ possess
is liberty; what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its service,
and, having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission.
Besides, the general temper of the colonies toward a British
government will be like that of a youth who is nearly out of his
time--they will care very little about her. And a government which
can not preserve the peace is no government at all, and in that
case we pay our money for nothing; and pray what is it that
Britain can do, whose power will be wholly on paper, should a
civil tumult break out the very day after reconciliation? I have
heard some men say, many of whom I believe spoke without thinking,
that they dreaded an independence, fearing that it would produce
civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly
correct, and that is the case here; for there is ten times more to
dread from a patched up connection than from independence. I make
the sufferer's case my own, and I protest that, were I driven from
house and home, my property destroyed, and my circumstances
ruined, that as a man sensible of injuries, I could never relish
the doctrine of reconciliation or consider myself bound thereby.
"The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and
obedience to continental government, as is sufficient to make
every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man can
assign the least pretense for his fears on any other grounds than
such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz.: that one colony
will be striving for superiority over another.
"Where there are no distinctions there can be no superiority;
perfect equality affords no temptation. The republics of Europe
are all (and we may say always) in peace. Holland and Switzerland
are without wars, foreign or domestic. Monarchical governments, it
is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a temptation
to enterprising ruffians at home, and that degree of pride and
insolence, ever attendant on regal authority, swells into a
rupture with foreign powers in instances where a republican
government, by being formed on more natural principles, would
negotiate the mistake.
"If there is any true cause of fear respecting independence, it is
because no plan is yet laid down. Men do not see their way out.
Wherefore, as an opening into that business, I offer the following
hints, at the same time modestly affirming that I have no other
opinion of them myself than that they may be the means of giving
rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts of
individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for
wise and able men to improve into useful matter:
"Let the assemblies be annual, with a president only. The
representation more equal. Their business wholly domestic, and
subject to the authority of a continental congress.
"Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten convenient
districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to
congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole
number in congress will be at least three hundred and ninety. Each
congress to sit ----, and to choose a president by the following
method: When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the
whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which let the congress
choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that
province. In the next congress, let a colony be taken by lot from
twelve only, omitting that colony from which the president was
taken in the former congress, and so proceeding on till the whole
thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And, in order that
nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just, not
less than three-fifths of the congress to be called a majority.
He that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed
as this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.
"But, as there is a peculiar delicacy from whom, or in what
manner, this business must first arise, and as it seems most
agreeable and consistent that it should come from some
intermediate body between the governed and the governors--that is,
between the congress and the people--let a _Continental
Conference_ be held, in the following manner, and for the
following purpose:
"A committee of twenty-six members of congress, viz.: two for each
colony; two members from each house of assembly, or provincial
convention, and five representatives of the people at large, to be
chosen in the capital city or town of each province, for and in
behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified voters as shall
think proper to attend from all parts of the province for that
purpose; or, if more convenient, the representatives may be chosen
in two or three of the most populous parts thereof. In this
conference, thus assembled, will be united the two grand
principles of business--_knowledge_ and _power_. The members of
congress, assemblies, or conventions, by having had experience in
national concerns, will be able and useful counselors, and the
whole, being empowered by the people, will have a truly legal
authority.
"The conferring members being met, let their business be to frame
a _Continental Charter_, or Charter of the United Colonies
(answering to what is called the Magna Charta of England); fixing
the number and manner of choosing members of congress and members
of assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of
business and jurisdiction between them (always remembering that
our strength is continental, not provincial); securing freedom and
property to all men, and, above all things, the free exercise of
religion, according to the dictates of conscience; with such other
matter as it is necessary for a charter to contain. Immediately
after which, the said conference to dissolve, and the bodies which
shall be chosen conformable to the said charter to be the
legislators and governors of this continent for the time being:
whose peace and happiness may God preserve. Amen.
"Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or some
similar purpose, I offer them the following extract from that wise
observer on governments, Dragonetti: 'The science,' says he, 'of
the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness and
freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages who should
discover a mode of government that contained the greatest sum of
individual happiness, with the least national expense.'
"But where, say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you,
friend: he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like
the royal brute of Britain. Yet, that we may not appear to be
defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart
for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the
divine law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by
which the world may know that, so far as we approve of monarchy,
that in America _the law is king_. For as in absolute governments
the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king;
and there ought to be no other. But, lest any ill use should
afterward arise, let the crown, at the conclusion of the ceremony,
be demolished, and scattered among the people, whose right it is.
"A government of our own is our natural right; and when a man
seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will
become convinced that it is infinitely wiser and safer to form a
constitution of our own in a cool, deliberate manner, while we
have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to
time and chance. If we omit it now, some Massanello may hereafter
arise, who, laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect
together the desperate and the discontented, and, by assuming to
themselves the powers of government, finally sweep away the
liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the government of
America return again into the hands of Britain, the tottering
situation of things will be a temptation for some desperate
adventurer to try his fortune; and, in such a case, what relief
can Britain give? Ere she could hear the news the fatal business
might be done, and ourselves suffering, like the wretched Britons,
under the oppression of the Conqueror. Ye that oppose independence
now, ye know not what ye do: ye are opening a door to eternal
tyranny, by keeping vacant the seat of government. There are
thousands, and tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to
expel from the continent that barbarous and hellish power, which
hath stirred up the Indians and negroes to destroy us. The cruelty
hath a double guilt--it is dealing brutally by us, and
treacherously by them.
"To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us to
have faith, and our affections, wounded through a thousand pores,
instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out
the little remains of kindred between us and them; and can there
be any reason to hope that, as the relationship expires, the
affection will increase, or that we shall agree better when we
have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel over than
ever?
"Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to
us the time that is past? Can ye give to prostitution its former
innocence? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The last
cord now is broken; the people of England are presenting addresses
against us. There are injuries which nature can not forgive--she
would cease to be nature if she did. As well can the lover forgive
the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders
of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us these
unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes. They are the
guardians of his image in our hearts, and distinguish us from the
herd of common animals. The social compact would dissolve, and
justice be extirpated from the earth, or have only a casual
existence, were we callous to the touches of affection. The robber
and the murderer would often escape unpunished, did not the
injuries which our tempers sustain provoke us into justice.
"Oh, ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the
tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world
is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been haunted round the
globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her
like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. Oh!
receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind."
ORIGINAL DECLARATION.[B]
I now place before the reader the original draft of the Declaration of
Independence, as it was presented by Jefferson. I have placed in
brackets the matter struck out or amended by Congress.
It will be remembered that Mr. Jefferson was chairman of the committee
to draft the document; Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, and
R. R. Livingston, being the other four of the committee; that they
changed but a word or two in it; and that John Adams became its champion
in Congress, and fought manfully for every word of it. Jefferson said
nothing, as he scarcely ever spoke in public:
1. "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for
one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected
them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the
separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of
nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
2. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with
[inherent and] inalienable rights; that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter and abolish it, and to institute new
government, laying its foundations on such principles, and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, [begun at a distinguished period, and]
pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce
them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for
their future security. Such has been the patient sufferings of
these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains
them to [expunge] their former systems of government. The history
of the present king of Great Britain, is a history of
[unremitting] injuries and usurpations, [among which appears no
solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, but all
have] in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny
over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a
candid world, [for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet
unsullied by falsehood.]
{223}3. "He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and
necessary for the public good.
4. "He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and
pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his
assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly
neglected to attend to them.
5. "He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of
large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish
the right of representation in the legislature, a right
inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
6. "He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public
records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance
with his measures.
7. "He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly [and
continually] for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on
the rights of the people.
8. "He has refused, for a long time after such dissolutions, to
cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers,
incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large
for their exercise, the state remaining, in the meantime, exposed
to dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.
9. "He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states;
for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of
foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations
hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
10. "He has [suffered] the administration of justice [totally to
cease in some of these states], refusing his assent to laws for
establishing judiciary powers.
11. "He has made [our] judges dependent on his will alone for the
tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their
salaries.
12. "He has erected a multitude of new offices [by a self-assumed
power], and sent hither swarms of new officers to harass our
people and eat out their substance.
13. "He has kept among us in times of peace standing armies [and
ships of war] without the consent of our legislatures.
14. "He has affected to render the military independent of and
superior to the civil power.
15. "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws,
giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation for
quartering large bodies of armed troops among us; for protecting
by a mock trial from punishment, any murders which they should
commit on the inhabitants of these states; for cutting off our
trade with all ports of the world; for imposing taxes on us
without our consent; for depriving us of the benefits of trial by
jury; for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended
offenses; for abolishing the free system of English laws in a
neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary
government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at
once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same
absolute rule in these [states]; for taking away our charters,
abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering, fundamentally,
the forms of our governments; for suspending our own legislatures,
and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us
in all cases whatsoever.
16. "He has abdicated government here [withdrawing his governors
and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection].
17. "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our
towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
18. "He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign
mercenaries, to complete the works of death, desolation, and
tyranny already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy,
unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
19. "He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the
high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the
executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves
by their hands.
20. "He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of the
frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of
warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and
conditions of [existence].
21. ["He has excited treasonable insurrection of our
fellow-citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture and
confiscation of our property.]
22. ["He has waged cruel war against human nature itself,
violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the
persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating
and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur
miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical
warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the
CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market
where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his
negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or
restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of
horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now
exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to
purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering
the people on whom he has obtruded them; thus paying off former
crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people with crimes
which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.]
23. "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for
redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been
answered only by repeated injuries.
24. "A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which
may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people [who
mean to be free. Future ages will scarcely believe that the
hardiness of one man adventured, within the short compass of
twelve years only, to lay a foundation so broad and so undisguised
for tyranny over a people fostered and fixed in principles of
freedom.]
25. "Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British
brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts, by
their legislature, to extend [a] jurisdiction over [these, our
States.] We have reminded them of the circumstances of our
emigration and settlement here, [no one of which would warrant so
strange a pretention. These were effected at the expense of our
own blood and treasure, unassisted by the wealth or strength of
Great Britain; that in constituting, indeed, our several forms of
government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a
foundation for perpetual league and amity with them; but that
submission to their Parliament was no part of our constitution,
nor ever in idea, if history may be credited; and] we appealed to
their native justice and magnanimity, [as well as to] the ties of
our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which [were
likely] to interrupt our connection and correspondence. They, too,
have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity; [and
when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of
their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our
harmony, they have, by their free election, reëstablished them in
power. At this very time, too, they are permitting their chief
magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but
Scotch and foreign mercenaries, to invade and destroy us. These
facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly
spirit bids us renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must
endeavor to forget our former love for them,] and hold them as we
hold the rest of mankind--enemies in war, in peace friends. [We
might have been a free and a great people together; but a
communion of grandeur and of freedom, it seems, is below their
dignity. Be it so, since they will have it. The road to happiness
and to glory is open to us, too. We will tread it apart from them,
and] acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our [eternal]
separation.
26. "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of
America, in general Congress assembled, do, in the name and by the
authority of the good people of these [States, reject and renounce
all allegiance and subjection to the King of Great Britain, and
all others who may hereafter claim by, through, or under them; we
utterly dissolve all political connection which may heretofore
have subsisted between us and the people or Parliament of Great
Britain; and, finally, we do assert and declare these colonies to
be free and independent States;] and that, as free and independent
States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract
alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things
which independent States may of right do.
"And for the support of this declaration, we mutually pledge to
each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
FOOTNOTES:
[A] Massacre at Lexington.
[B] See Note A, page 277.
ANALYSIS.
We have to do with the original draft, and to let the reader see the
hand of a master, I will analyze it.
"I love method," said Mr. Paine. The method of the piece stands as
follows, and, for the sake of elucidation, I have numbered the
paragraphs in the original;
I. INTRODUCTION, viz:--Paragraph 1.
II. BILL OF RIGHTS--Paragraph 2.
III. INDICTMENT--under three general charges: _Usurpation_,
_Abdication_, and _War_, as follows:
USURPATION.
Par. 3, 4, 5--Laws usurped, and hereunder:
_a._ Negatived.
_b._ Forbidden and neglected.
_c._ Refused, unless rights are surrendered.
Par. 6, 7, 8, 9--Legislation usurped, and hereunder:
_a._ Legislative bodies meet at the wrong place.
_b._ Legislative bodies dissolved.
_c._ Refused to have them elected.
_d._ Obstructing legislation for naturalization.
Par. 10, 11, 12--Judiciary powers usurped, and hereunder:
_a._ Destroyed by his negative.
_b._ Made the judges dependent on his will,
_c._ And erected new offices by his own will.
Par. 13, 14--Military powers usurped, and hereunder:
_a._ Established without consent of legislatures.
_b._ Made superior to civil power.
Par. 15--Jurisdiction usurped, and hereunder:
_a._ Troops, the quartering of.
_b._ Trial, of a mock nature.
_c._ Trade, the cutting off.
_d._ Taxes, without consent.
_e._ Trial, depriving of.
_f._ Transportation, to be
_g._ Tried, for pretended offenses.
_h._ Laws, abolishing the English.
_i._ Charters, the taking of.
_j._ Laws, abolishing special ones.
_k._ Constitutions, altering form of.
_l._ Legislatures, suspension of.
_m._ Power, to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
ABDICATION.
Par. 16--Declaring us out of his allegiance and protection.
WAR.
Par. 17--Warfare begun, and hereunder:
_a._ Seas plundered.
_b._ Coasts ravaged.
_c._ Towns burnt.
_d._ Lives destroyed.
Par. 18--Invasion.
Par. 19--Pressing of seamen.
Par. 20--Indian massacres.
Par. 21--Insurrection.
Par. 22--Waging war against human nature.
IV. PEACEFUL METHOD OF REDRESS, viz: Petitioning--Paragraph 23.
V. NECESSITY OF SEPARATION--declared in Paragraphs 24, 25.
VI. POWERS OF AN INDEPENDENT STATE DECLARED TO THE WORLD--in Paragraph
26.
ARGUMENT.
Let us now examine Articles III, IV, V, and VI. As they form the piece
proper, namely, the indictment and the declaration thereunder, let us
compare them with reference to the following:
In the conclusion of Common Sense Mr. Paine wrote: "Should a manifesto
be published and dispatched to foreign courts setting forth--
I. "The miseries we have endured; [This is Art. III of the
Declaration.]
II. "The peaceful methods which we have ineffectually used for redress;
[This is Art. IV of the Declaration.]
III. "Declaring at the same time that, not being able any longer to live
happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British court, we
had been driven to the _necessity_ of breaking off all connection with
her; [This is Art. V of the Declaration.]
IV. "At the same time assuring all courts of our peaceful disposition
toward them, and of our desire of entering into _trade_ with them."
[This is Art. VI of the Declaration.]
Here are, _in their order_, the directions for producing the four last
articles of the famous document, and which constitute, as a special
instrument, all there is of it. Did Mr. Jefferson study this production
of Thomas Paine's so closely as to get the _exact order_, without
transposing an article? A cursory reading would not do this, and if he
did not study it for this purpose, then the same peculiar mind belonged
to Jefferson that belonged to Thomas Paine; and in writing the
Declaration a greater special miracle was performed than any recorded of
Jesus of Nazareth.
In the above there is a striking coincidence of documentary facts, in
the same order, and it is safe to say there is not one man in a million
who, in reading Common Sense, would remember this order, unless he read
it with such special purpose. But it is known Jefferson never consulted
a book or paper upon the subject, nor for the purpose of producing it.
Here is what Bancroft says, and I have found him to be a truthful
historian as to current facts touching on the subject:
"From the fullness of his own mind, without consulting one single book,
Jefferson drafted the Declaration; he submitted it separately to
Franklin and John Adams, accepted from each of them one or two verbal
unimportant corrections," etc.--Hist., vol. viii, p. 465.
The above history is doubtless taken from the reply of Mr. Jefferson to
attacks on the originality of the Declaration, which is as follows:
"Pickering's observations and Mr. Adams' in addition, 'that it contained
no new ideas; that it is a common-place compilation; its sentiments
hackneyed in Congress for two years before, and its essence contained in
Otis' pamphlet,' may all be true. Of that I am not to be the judge.
Richard Henry Lee charged it as copied from Locke's Treatise on
Government. Otis' pamphlet I never saw; and whether I had gathered my
ideas from reading, I do not know. I know only that I turned to neither
book nor pamphlet while writing it."--Works, vol. vii, p. 305.
This was written when he was eighty years old.
But it seems that Mr. Jefferson had never read the pamphlet, Common
Sense, as the following gross error in regard to it will show. Speaking
of Mr. Paine, he says: "Indeed, his Common Sense was for awhile believed
to have been written by Dr. Franklin, and published under the borrowed
name of Paine, who had come over with him from England."--Works, vol.
vii., p. 198.
In the above sentence there are two historic errors. First, Common Sense
was not published under the name of Paine; and, second, Mr. Paine did
not come over with Franklin from England. He preceded Franklin six
months.
That Mr. Paine did not attach his name to the pamphlet, Common Sense,
there is abundance of evidence to prove. The author of a pamphlet,
subscribed Rationalis, in answer to Common Sense, says: "I know not the
author, nor am I anxious to learn his name or character, for the book,
and not the writer of it, is to be the subject of my animadversions."
But we have Mr. Paine's own testimony, in the second edition of Common
Sense, direct to the point. In a postscript to the Introduction, he
says: "Who the author of this production is, is wholly unnecessary to
the public, as the object for attention is the doctrine, not the man.
Yet it may not be unnecessary to say that he is unconnected with any
party, and under no sort of influence, public or private, but the
influence of reason and principle."
An examination of all the earliest editions which can be seen in the
Congressional Library at Washington will satisfy any one on this
subject.
If Mr. Jefferson had read Common Sense before the writing of the
Declaration, he would never have erred so in regard to this fact. This
goes to show he had not even read it, much less studied it. How, then,
was the exact order followed, in writing the Declaration, which Mr.
Paine laid down in Common Sense?
My first proposition, then, I have proven, namely: that Thomas Paine
wrote a work for the sole purpose of bringing about a separation and
making a Declaration of Independence. I have proven, also, that he
therein submitted the subject-matter in the _order_ in which it was
afterwards put. This much on the positive side. On the negative side, I
have shown that Mr. Jefferson did none of these things, for it was
produced from "the fullness of his own mind, without consulting one
single book."
But if Mr. Bancroft be a truthful historian, there is already great
doubt thrown on Jefferson's authorship of it, and it would have been
better to have made Jefferson a close student and thorough reader for
this special purpose. This is the view, in fact, taken of the question
of authorship in the New American Cyclopedia (article Thomas Jefferson),
and I will give an extract therefrom, to show how historians differ.
Speaking of the Declaration, the Cyclopedia says: "Two questions have,
however, arisen as to its originality: the first, a general one upon the
substance of the document; the second, in regard to its phraseology in
connection with the alleged Mecklenburg declaration of May, 1775. It is
more than probable that Jefferson made use of some of the ideas
expressed in newspapers at the time, and that his study of the great
English writers upon constitutional freedom was of service to him. But
an impartial criticism will not base upon this fact a charge of want of
originality. It should rather be regarded as the peculiar merit of the
writer that he thus _collected and embodied_ the conclusions upon
government of the leading thinkers of the age in Europe and America,
rejecting what was false, and combining his material into a production
of so much eloquence and dignity."
This does not sound much like Bancroft. The two historians have placed
Mr. Jefferson in a sad dilemma. The one, to make him an original in the
production of the Declaration, says he did not consult one single book,
but produced it from the fullness of his own mind. The other, to defend
him from the charge of want of originality, says he made use of the
newspapers, collected and embodied, etc. But the single fact which I
have brought from the conclusion of Common Sense destroys the first
hypothesis, and the last hypothesis, in being contradictory in itself
destroys itself. How the reader will fathom this labyrinth of
contradictions, and reconcile this conflict of historic opinion, is a
question which does not trouble me, and I pass on to something more
important.
STYLE.
The style of the Declaration of Independence is in every particular the
style of Mr. Paine and Junius; and it is in no particular the style of
Thomas Jefferson. This I now proceed to prove.
That equality in the members of the periods, which gives evenness and
smoothness, and the alliteration which gives harmony in the sound, and
which together render the writings of Mr. Paine so stately and metrical,
are qualities so prominent that no one can mistake the style. And what
renders the argument in this regard so strong, is the entire absence of
these qualities in Mr. Jefferson's writings. In fact, if Mr. Jefferson
drafted the Declaration of Independence, he never before nor since wrote
any thing like it, in the same style, order, or spirit; or produced any
thing which evinced genius, or the hand of a master in literature. What
I have already said on style, in the former part of this work, will
render this readily understood by the reader; but I will now make a few
comparisons, and first with Junius, and then Paine and Jefferson.
Junius wrote two declarations, or rather pieces, after the very same
style and manner, namely, the first and the thirty-fifth Letters. They
can be thrown into the same synoptical form in which I have put the
Declaration. But to show the rythm, and alliteration, and peculiar
style, I give the following:
"When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them
with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the
separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of
nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation."--Declaration.
"When the complaints of a brave and powerful people are observed
to increase in proportion to the wrongs they have suffered; when,
instead of sinking into submission, they are roused to resistance,
the time will soon arrive at which every inferior consideration
must yield to the security of the sovereign and to the general
safety of the state. There is a moment of difficulty and danger at
which flattery and falsehood can no longer deceive, and simplicity
itself can no longer be misled."--Junius.
"When the tumult of war shall cease, and the tempest of present
passions be succeeded by calm reflection; or when those who,
surviving its fury, shall inherit from you a legacy of debts and
misfortunes; when the yearly revenue shall scarcely be able to
discharge the interest of the one, and no possible remedy be left
for the other, ideas far different from the present will arise and
embitter the remembrance of former follies."
The above three extracts are from the Declaration, Junius, and Crisis,
viii. There is in them the same stately measure or _tread_; the same
harmony of sounds; the same gravity of sentiment; the same clearness of
diction; the same boldness of utterance; the same beauty and vivacity;
in short, the same spirit and the same hand.
Now an extract from Jefferson will be in place, and I give it from one
of his most impassioned pieces, the "Summary View." I do this for two
reasons: first, because it is the only piece, up to the writing of the
Declaration, which he ever produced worthy of note; and second, because
it is his best. I give also the best of this piece, the exordium:
{236}"_Resolved_, That it be an instruction to the said deputies,
when assembled in General Congress, with the deputies from the
other states of British America, to propose to the said Congress
that an humble and dutiful address be presented to his Majesty,
begging leave to lay before him, as Chief Magistrate of the
British empire, the united complaints of his Majesty's subjects in
America; complaints which are excited by many unwarrantable
encroachments and usurpations, attempted to be made by the
legislature of one part of the empire upon the rights which God
and the laws have given equally and independently to all. To
represent to his Majesty that these, his states, have often
individually made humble application to his imperial Throne to
obtain through its intervention some redress of their injured
rights, to none of which was ever even an answer condescended.
Humbly to hope that this, their joint address, penned in the
language of truth, and divested of those expressions of servility
which would persuade his Majesty that we are asking favors, and
not rights, shall obtain from his Majesty a respectful acceptance;
and this his Majesty will think we have reason to expect, when he
reflects that he is no more than the chief officer of the people,
appointed by the laws, and circumscribed with definite powers to
assist in working the great machine of government, erected for
their use, and consequently subject to their superintendence, and
in order that these our rights, as well as the invasions of them,
may be laid more fully before his Majesty, to take a view of them
from the origin and first settlement of these countries."
It will be observed in the above extract from Mr. Jefferson, that there
is no proportion between the members of the sentences. We have them of
all lengths, interlarded with phrases, and thrown into a confused mass.
Hence, there is no _harmony_. Mr. Paine's periods are almost faultless
in this regard; the members of the periods follow each other like the
waves of the ocean, which gives _evenness_ of "_tread_" and _majesty_ of
_expression_. While the style of Mr. Jefferson is absolutely devoid of
all _harmony_, for the members of the periods move on like the rumbling
of a government wagon over a rough and stony road.
This peculiarity of style is one of mental constitution. It is an effect
of nature which education can never remedy. No art can reach it, for no
mental training can annul a law of nature. It may be said of the writer
in this regard as of the poet: "He is born, not made." It is herein
nature made these two men entirely unlike. Paine was a poet; Jefferson
was not. The former had the most lively imagination; the latter had none
at all. It is this quality of the mind--_imagination_--which adorns
language with the figure.
In the proper use of the figure Mr. Paine can not be excelled. Mr.
Jefferson makes but infrequent use of figures of speech, and when he
goes out of the ruts of custom, he almost always fails in his efforts.
Two or three examples will suffice. In vol. i, p. 58, he says: "I never
heard either of them speak ten minutes at a time, nor to any but the
main point which was to decide the question. They laid their shoulders
to the great points, knowing that the little ones would follow of
themselves." In this men are arguing the _points_ of a question. But Mr.
Jefferson says they "laid their shoulders" to them, instead of their
tongues. In vol. i, p. 358, he says: "The Emperor, to satisfy this
tinsel passion, _plants_ a dagger in the heart of every Dutchman, which
no time will extract." Perhaps these planted daggers will take root. He
speaks also about "confabs" and "swallowing opinions."
* * * * *
Let us look now, for a moment, at the grand requisites of style,
_Precision_, _Unity_, and _Strength_.
Of the first, I would say, I have never yet seen an ambiguous sentence
in Paine's works. Mr. Jefferson's style is confused, labored, and
prolix. There is no paragraph he ever wrote, especially in the first
half of his life, but will bear me out in the assertion, that he uses a
great many words to express a few ideas. The above quotation I cite on
this point. It could all have been put into one-fourth of the space, and
thus have been rendered clear and distinct. His style, however, grew
better as he grew older. He is diffuse, which at once destroys _Unity_
of expression. He puts subject after subject into one period, often into
one sentence. The consequence is, there is no order in his style, and
his ideas tumble over each other in the greatest confusion; and the
consequence of this is, there is no _Strength_ to his style.
That the reader may see all these faults, I will make a brief analysis
of the Introduction to the "Summary View," quoted above:
FIRST PERIOD.
1. Instruction, to deputies.
2. When assembled in Congress.
3. With other deputies.
4. To propose to Congress.
5. To present an address to his Majesty.
6. Begging leave to lay before him complaints.
7. Complaints excited.
8. By encroachments and usurpations.
9. By the legislature of a part of the empire.
10. On the rights which God and the laws have given
11. Equally to all.
This is the first sentence. In it he has put the Introduction, the Bill
of Rights, the Indictment, a proposition to Congress to go a begging
before his Majesty, and several other particulars. But let us continue
with the next sentence:
SECOND PERIOD.
12. To represent to his Majesty.
13. That his states.
14. Humble application.
15. To Imperial Throne.
16. To get redress of injured rights.
17. No answer.
Here there is no relation between the _beginning_ of the sentence and
the conclusion.
THIRD PERIOD.
18. Humbly to hope.
19. By joint address.
_a._ Penned in truth.
_b._ Divested of terms of servility.
20. Would persuade his Majesty.
21. That we ask no favors.
22. But rights.
23. Shall obtain a respectful acceptance.
24. His Majesty will think.
25. We have reason to expect.
26. When he reflects.
_a._ That he is only the chief officer.
_b._ Appointed by law.
_c._ Circumscribed with powers.
_d._ To assist in working the great machine of government.
_e._ Erected for their use.
_f._ Are therefore subject to their superintendence.
27. And that these our rights.
28. As well as invasions.
29. May be laid before his Majesty.
_a._ To take a view of them.
_b._ From their origin.
_c._ And first settlement of these countries.
It is only necessary to remark on the above, that thirty or forty
subjects can hardly be handled successfully in three periods. How
different is this from the Declaration, or, in fact, from any production
of Mr. Paine's.
In the three great requisites of style, _Precision_, _Unity_, and
_Strength_, where Mr. Paine is so perfect, we see great defects in
Jefferson; and in the fourth, _Harmony_, a complete failure.
If we now take the "Summary View," and submit it to the same critical
analysis as I have the Declaration of Independence, we will find the
same defects in it, as a whole, that we find in the first paragraph,
which I have just analyzed. There is a complete mixture of all subjects.
But this I leave to the reader, should he question the truth of my
assertion.
If we now turn to the synopsis of the Declaration, we will find an
exhibition of the most perfect _order._ The Introduction is short, to
the point, and complete. The Bill of Rights contains the _first
principles_. These apply to mankind universally. It then proceeds as a
specialty. The Indictment is divided into three grand divisions,
Usurpation, Abdication, and War, and the separate counts are stated,
clearly containing but one subject. Nowhere do we find a mixing up of
different subjects. We do not find a count of war under the head of
usurpation, nor one of usurpation under the head of war.
* * * * *
There is also seen the passion for alliteration throughout the whole
instrument, and especially in the following passages: "Fostered and
fixed in principles of freedom." Paragraph 22 is filled with examples.
But in paragraph 15 it seems he uses this power of the mind to aid him
in itemizing counts. He takes t for the letter under which he marshals
this army of charges: "Troops," "trial," "trade," "taxes," "trial,"
[No. 2,] "transportation," "tried." Here are seven words comprising as
many charges following in succession. He follows it with others, but
never uses the t again. This shows a passion for order and alliteration.
I presume there is no other document in the world with these
peculiarities so marked, and I presume there is no writer in the world
who ever exhibited to such a remarkable degree these peculiarities of
style, as did Thomas Paine. [See on this subject Junius Unmasked, p.
107.] Now, these peculiarities are almost entirely wanting in Thomas
Jefferson, and without them it is absolutely impossible for him to be
the author of the Declaration of Independence.
I wish now to call attention to the word "hath." It is found but once in
the Declaration, and is in paragraph 2, in the following connection:
"And accordingly all experience hath shown." It is put in here for the
sake of harmony and force in sound, for if we substitute the word has,
there will be a halting at shown, and a disagreeable hissing sound. At
the time this was written Mr. Paine frequently used the word, and it may
have slipped in unnoticed, on account of sound, or he may have put it in
so that the critic could track him. I have never seen the word in any of
Jefferson's writings.
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS.
I have heretofore shown that Mr. Paine had the Declaration of
Independence in view in the production of Common Sense, and that he
sketched therein the outlines in the same order in which they afterward
appeared. I have shown its architecture and plan, and also its style,
to be that of Mr. Paine's, and not Mr. Jefferson's. I have shown this
somewhat in detail, but not more than the subject demanded. Herein I
have given the grand outlines and general features, but I shall now
review the whole, to point out its special characteristics, that, in the
multitude of small things all tending one way, it will be made
conclusive to the mind of the reader that it is Mr. Paine's, and not
Jefferson's. In this I shall be compelled, some times, to refer to
propositions already proven in the first part of this work, to shorten
the argument, not wishing to go over the same ground twice. In the
demonstration of a theorem in geometry, what has been proven is made to
aid what shall come after. I shall proceed with the same method, and not
be guilty of taking any thing which Mr. Paine may have written
afterward, to prove something which has gone before. But mental
_characteristics_ may be taken wherever we can find them. I am confined
to Common Sense, and shall use also Junius as aiding, but never to
_entirely_ prove a point. In my references to Common Sense, I shall be
compelled to refer to the page. I use the political works of Mr. Paine
as published by J. P. Mendum, Boston, as they are most generally known
and read in this country. With these explanations, the reader can not go
wrong.
* * * * *
I now take up the original Declaration, beginning with the Introduction;
and, as I have numbered its paragraphs, I shall use the figures to
denote them, proceeding in their numerical order:
Paragraph 1. "Political bonds." The same figure is found on page 64,
Common Sense.
"To assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station
to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them." Here the
crowning thought is that God, through his natural laws, and by natural
proofs, designed a separation. Thus Mr. Paine, in Common Sense, page 37,
says: "The distance at which the Almighty hath placed England and
America is a strong and _natural_ proof that the authority of the one
over the other was never the design of Heaven." ... "Every thing that is
right or _natural_ pleads for separation."
Note also above the phrase, "separate and _equal_ station." The writer
of the Declaration considered England and America equal, and thus Mr.
Paine says, above: "It is proof that the authority of _the one_ over
_the other_ was never the design of Heaven."
"A decent _respect_ for the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Note
hereunder the phrase, "_decent respect_." Thus, in his introduction to
his first Letter, which was an indictment and declaration of principles
also, Junius says: "Let us enter into it [the inquiry] with candor and
_decency_. _Respect_ is due to the station of ministers, and, if a
resolution must at last be taken, there is none so likely to be
supported with firmness as that which has been adopted with moderation."
The above are perfect parallels in idea, and in the expression of the
prominent thought, "_decent respect_." But the thought is expanded from
the narrow confines of the British nation to the whole world, and if Mr.
Paine wrote both, as they strongly indicate, to make the conclusion
good we must find this change or mental growth in Mr. Paine to coincide
therewith. Here it is: "In this extensive quarter of the globe, we
forget the narrow limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of
England), and carry our friendship on a larger scale. We claim
brotherhood with every European Christian, and triumph in the generosity
of the sentiment.
"It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount local
prejudices as we enlarge our acquaintance with the world. A man born in
any town in England," etc. I wish the reader to read the whole of the
paragraph I have begun. See Common Sense, pages 35 and 36. See also
Crisis, viii, near its close; a noble passage on the same subject. Mr.
Paine frequently takes the pains to tell us how he outgrew his local
prejudices, and how he at last considered the "world his country." He
undertook, also, for America what he calls "_the business of a
world_."--Common Sense, page 63.
Paragraph 2. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and
inalienable rights." Compare from Common Sense, pages 24, 25, and 28, as
follows: "Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the
equality could not be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance." ...
"The equal rights of nature." ... "For all men being originally equals,"
etc. So, also, Junius says: "In the rights of freedom we are all equal."
... "The first original rights of the people," etc. To show that he
believes these rights to be inalienable, he says:
"The equality can not be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance."
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Junius uses the terms,
"Life, liberty, and fortune."--Let. 66. And Mr. Paine frequently, "Life,
liberty, and property." But these terms were in quite common use with
many writers.
"To secure these rights, _governments_ are instituted among men." What
is said on government in this paragraph is paraphrased or condensed from
page 21, Common Sense. It is a concise repetition of Mr. Paine's pet
theme and political principles, first given to the world in Junius, and
then elaborated in Common Sense.
"_Prudence_ indeed will dictate." This word _prudence_ is ever flowing
from the pen of Mr. Paine. See an example on page 21, Common Sense. It
is quite common in Junius. The same may be said, also, of the word
_experience_.
"And accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more
disposed to _suffer while evils are sufferable_, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Compare Common Sense, page 17, as follows: "As a long and violent abuse
of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question,
and in matters, too, which might never have been thought of, had not the
_sufferers_ been aggravated to the inquiry," etc.
"_Forms._" That is, the "forms of the constitution." See Junius, Let.
44, where he says: "I should be contented to renounce the forms of the
Constitution once more, if there were no other way to obtain
substantial justice for the people." And here the Declaration is
renouncing the forms.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, all having in direct
object the establishment of an absolute _tyranny_ over these States."
Paine says on _tyranny_: "Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not
what ye do, ye are opening a door to _eternal tyranny_, by keeping
vacant the seat of government." ... "Ye that dare oppose not only the
_tyranny,_ but the tyrant, stand forth." Common Sense, p. 47.
"To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, _for the truth
of which we pledge a faith, yet unsullied by falsehood_." The above
sentence is very peculiar, and I will show wherein. The last member of
the sentence which I have italicised was stricken out of the original
draft by Congress. The peculiarity in it is that "_the truth of a fact_"
is affirmed, and its falsehood implied. Now a fact is always true. There
can be no false facts. What is here meant, is, that we pledge a faith
yet unsullied by falsehood, that the statements are true. Not that the
facts are _true_, but that they are facts. It is the passion (if I may
so express it) for conciseness, to speak of facts being true or false.
Now this is a peculiarity of Junius. In Let. 3 he says: "I am sorry to
tell you, Sir William, that in this article your first fact is false."
It is thus Mr. Paine frequently sacrifices both grammar and strict
definition to conciseness; but never to obscure the sense. An example
from the publicly acknowledged pen of Mr. Paine ought to be here
produced; I, therefore, give one from his letter to the Abbe Raynal,
which is as follows: "His _facts_ are coldly and carelessly stated.
They neither inform the reader, nor interest him. Many of them are
_erroneous_, and most of them are defective and obscure." Here
"erroneous facts," "false facts," and "facts for the truth of which we
pledge a faith unsullied by falsehood," are evidence of the same head
and hand. It is thus an author puts some peculiar feature of his soul on
paper unwittingly; and it lies there a fossil, till the critic,
following the lines of nature, gathers it up to classify, arrange, and
combine with others, and then to put on canvas, or in marble bust. It
may be well to remind the reader that the above peculiarity I can
nowhere find in Jefferson's writings.
I now call attention to the sentence: "But when a long train of abuses
and usurpations [begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing
invariably the same object] evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
I have placed in brackets what has been interpolated by Jefferson. I
conclude this from the following reasons:
1. It breaks the measure.
2. It destroys the harmony of the period, and the sentence is
complete and harmonious without it.
3. "Begun at a distinguished period," is indefinite.
4. It refers to time, and is mixed up with other subject matter,
and is therefore in the wrong place.
5. It is tautology, for two sentences further on it is all
expressed in its proper place, in referring to the history of the
king.
In all of these particulars it is not like Mr. Paine, for he is never
guilty of such a breach of rhetoric. But in all of the above particulars
it is just like Mr. Jefferson.
The above two paragraphs comprise the Introduction and the Bill of
Rights, and are the foundation of the Declaration. It is a basis fit and
substantial, because one of universal principles, so that whatever
special right may be enunciated, it will rest firmly on this foundation;
or whatever special denunciation of wrongs, it will have its authority
therein.
I now pass to consider the indictment under its three
divisions--_Usurpation_, _Abdication_, and _War_.
If the reader will now turn back to page 223, he will find from
paragraphs 3 to 15, inclusive, the whole charge of usurpation included
therein. But, separately, we find paragraph 3 to be a charge of the
abuse of the king's negative; and he concludes in paragraph 15 with the
climax, "suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves [the
king and parliament] invested with power to legislate for us in all
cases whatsoever." Now, if the reader will turn to page 41, Common
Sense, which is page 213 of this book, he will find Mr. Paine beginning
the first of his "several reasons" as follows:
"1. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands of the
king, he will have a negative over the whole of this continent."
It will be observed, in a general view, that the _reasons_ given by Mr.
Paine cover the whole thirteen paragraphs; and it will be observed
specially that he begins the reasons the same as he does the
indictment--namely, with the king's negative. Mr. Paine was violently
opposed to the king's negative, and all through life he never fails to
attack it, when the opportunity offered itself. This would weigh most
heavily on his mind, and be most naturally uttered first. On page 59 of
Common Sense will also be found reasons for independence, which come
within this part of the indictment. But pages 41, 42, 43 of Common Sense
cover nearly, or quite all of it. But they are stated _generally_ for
the sake of argument--not _specially_ for the sake of indictment.
Paragraph 16. "He has abdicated government here, withdrawing his
governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection."
Compare with this the following, to be found on page 61 of Common Sense:
"The present state of America is truly alarming to every man who is
capable of reflection. _Without law, without government, without any
other mode of power than what is founded on and granted by courtesy._
Held together by an unexampled occurrence of sentiment, which is,
nevertheless, subject to change, and which every secret enemy is
endeavoring to dissolve. Our present condition is legislation without
law, wisdom without a plan, a constitution without a name."
I now take up the third part of the indictment--_War_.
Paragraph 17. "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our
towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."
Paragraph 18. "He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign
mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny,
already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy unworthy the
head of a civilized nation."
On the above two counts, which charge war and invasion, I submit from
Common Sense, page 62, as follows: "_It is the violence which is done
and threatened to our persons, the destruction of our property by an
armed force, the invasion of our country by fire and sword_, which
conscientiously qualifies the use of arms; and the instant in which such
mode of defense became necessary, all subjection to Britain ought to
have ceased, and the independence of America should have been considered
as dating its era from, and published by the first musket that was fired
against her."
Under the above, also, may be classed paragraph 19.
Paragraph 20. "He has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants the
merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions of
existence." Compare Common Sense, page 47, as follows: "There are
thousands and tens of thousands who would think it glorious to expel
from the continent that barbarous and hellish power which hath stirred
up the Indians and negroes to destroy us."
Paragraph 21. "He has excited _treasonable insurrection_," etc. Compare
Common Sense, page 61, as follows: "The tories dared not have assembled
_offensively_, had they known that their lives, by that act, were
forfeited to the laws of the State. A line of distinction should be
drawn between English soldiers taken in battle and inhabitants of
America _taken in arms_: the first are prisoners, but the latter
_traitors_--the one forfeits his liberty, the other his head."
The above paragraph and the following one, it will be remembered, were
stricken out by Congress.
I now come to the closing paragraph of this part of the indictment, and,
as it is the most important of all, the author kept it for a climax, and
he throws his whole soul into it. I will transcribe it here:
Paragraph 22. "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself,
violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty, in the persons of
a distant people, who never offended him, captivating and carrying them
into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their
transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of
INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain.
Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he
has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt
to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and, that this
assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now
exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase
that liberty of which he has deprived them; thus paying off former
crimes, committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which
he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another."
The capital words in the above are his own. Let us begin with the last
sentence, and go backward. The substance of the last sentence is, that
by exciting the negroes to rise on the people of this continent, the
king was guilty of a double crime, both against the _liberties_ of the
negroes and the _lives_ of the American people. Compare Common Sense,
page 47, as follows: "He hath stirred up the Indians and _negroes_ to
destroy us; _the cruelty hath a double guilt--it is dealing brutally by
us and treacherously by them_." This is the same complex idea, well
reasoned out, and expressed almost in the same language--certainly in
the same style. But Jefferson "never consulted a single book," so
original was the Declaration to his own mind and habits of thought!
Let us now take the sentence: "This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of
INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain."
The antithesis above between infidel and Christian, falls upon the mind
with such stunning weight; with such boldness of religious sentiment;
with such emphasis in expression, and with such withering sarcasm toward
the king, that it becomes an epitome of Mr. Paine himself, and a concise
record of his whole life, up to that period. The reader can not fail
here to see the pen of Junius, and to recall the great power of
antithesis in all his Letters. This peculiarity of style is _absolutely
wanting_ in Jefferson.
The first sentence in the paragraph, is in every phrase so like Mr.
Paine, the reader must think it superfluous to comment upon it. The
expressions, "cruel war," "against human nature," "sacred rights," "life
and liberty," "in the persons of," and especially "_prostituted_," are
all to be found in Common Sense and Junius. For the phrase "in the
persons of," see it repeated three times on page 22 of Common Sense.
Thus ends the indictment. It is Article I, of Mr. Paine's Manifesto,
heretofore pointed out. I now proceed with Article II of the Manifesto,
which he states to be "the peaceful methods which we have ineffectually
used for redress." See Common Sense, p. 56. It is as follows:
Paragraph 23. "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned in
the most humble terms; our _repeated petitions_ have been answered by
repeated injuries." Compare Common Sense, pp. 39-40, as follows: "Every
quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our prayers hath been
rejected with disdain, and only tended to convince us that nothing
flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy in kings more than in _repeated
petitioning_."
Paragraph 24. "A prince whose character is thus marked by every act
which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean
to be free. Future ages will scarcely believe, that the hardiness of one
man, adventured within the short compass of twelve years only, to lay a
foundation so broad and so undisguised for tyranny over a people
fostered and fixed in principles of freedom."
The first sentence pronounces the king a tyrant, and is so often
repeated heretofore by Mr. Paine, it is useless to cite any thing in
proof. The second sentence was stricken out of the Declaration by
Congress, and contains new matter which must be attended to. And,
First, "_Future ages will scarcely believe that_." This phrase is
peculiar to Mr. Paine, for his mind was continually dwelling on the
future. So Junius says: "_Posterity will scarce believe that_."--Let.
48. And Mr. Paine says: "_Mankind will scarcely believe that_."--Rights
of Man, p. 94.
I parallel this phrase not so much to show a verbal construction as to
show a mental characteristic which must express itself in the same
language.
Second, "That the hardiness of one man adventured." Compare with this
from Common Sense, page 41: "No man was a warmer wisher for
reconciliation than myself, before the fatal nineteenth of April, 1775;
but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected the
_hardened_, sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England forever," etc. How
different is this language in the Declaration, from that used by Mr.
Jefferson in the "Summary View," when speaking of the king. Jefferson
used the word majesty, as though he was speaking to a god; and seems to
delight in the repetition of it. See p. 236.
Third, "Within the short compass of twelve years only." The Declaration
was dated July 4th, 1776. Twelve years would take it back to 1764. This
was the year the stamp act passed, and made an era in colonial troubles.
Now, if Mr. Paine had been speaking of the troubles of the English
people, he would have used the same expression, with the exception of
adding a year; for, as before stated in the first part of this work, Mr.
Paine dated the miseries, oppressions, and invasions on the rights of
the English people from the close of the Seven Years' War, or the
beginning of 1763. And the time was estimated in round numbers as
follows:
Junius says, in the beginning of 1769: "Outraged and oppressed as we
are, this nation will not bear after a _six years' peace_," etc.; and,
also, in the beginning of 1770: "At the _end of seven years_ we are
loaded," etc. Mr. Paine, at the close of the year 1778, says to the
English people: "A period of sixteen years of misconduct and
misfortune," etc. These round numbers all refer back to the beginning of
1763, and the expression in the Declaration, "within the short compass
of _twelve years only_," is not, as it appears, inconsistent with this
peculiarity, for the English era with him was 1763, and the American
1764. Nowhere do I find this mental characteristic in Jefferson. This is
strong proof--it goes beyond proof, it is demonstration. Mr. Jefferson,
nor any man living, could steal this fact; it is one of mental
constitution, stamped there and pointing with fingers of truth both
backward and forward to Thomas Paine, and at right angles to the
character of Thomas Jefferson.
The figure "compass" is often found in Mr. Paine's writings, as "compass
a plan," and the like. But I call attention to the perfect similarity in
style between the Declaration and every passage from Common Sense.
Paragraph 25. "Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British
brethren. We have _warned_ them from time to time," etc. It is the
peculiarity of Mr. Paine to hold up a warning to the sense. See on this
point, page 103 of this work.
"We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and
settlement here." Compare Common Sense, p. 35, as follows: "This new
world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and
religious liberty from _every part_ of Europe. Hither have they fled,
not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the
monster, and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which
drove the first emigrants from home pursues their descendants still."
Thus, also, says the Declaration (and note the style): "These were
affected at the expense of our own blood and treasure, unassisted by
the wealth or strength of Great Britain; that in constituting indeed our
several forms of government we had adopted one _common king_."
I call attention to the phrases, "_common king_," "_common blood_," and
"_common kindred_," in the same paragraph. Mr. Paine was never guilty of
calling England the "parent" or "mother" country, but the "common"
country. (See Common Sense, p. 36.) Junius in Let. 1 says: "A series of
inconsistent measures has alienated the Colonies from their duty as
subjects, and from their _natural affection_ to their _common country_."
Jefferson uses "parent" and "mother" country, both before and after the
writing of the Declaration.
In connection with the above sentence from Junius, I subjoin the same
sentiment in regard to _natural affection_ from the Declaration a few
sentences further on, as follows: "These facts have given the last stab
to agonizing _affection_, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever
these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for
them, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in
peace friends." Compare with this, Common Sense, p. 47, as follows: "To
talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us to have
faith, and our _affections_ wounded through a thousand pores instruct us
to detest, is madness and folly. Every day wears out the little remains
of kindred between us and them." In regard to the phrase "_renounce
forever_" above, as quoted from the Declaration, compare Common Sense,
p. 38, as follows: "That seat of wretchedness [speaking of Boston] will
teach us wisdom and instruct us to _forever renounce_ a power in whom we
can have no trust." See also Common Sense, p. 37, as follows: "And our
duty to mankind at large, as well as to ourselves, instructs us _to_
renounce the alliance."
The expression "forever" will not be mistaken, for it runs through
Junius' and all of Mr. Paine's writings as a common expression.
The figure "to stab" is one which Mr. Paine adopted in Junius and
carried through his whole life. Thus he talks about "stabbing the
Constitution," and "to stab the character of the nation." The former is
found in Junius, the latter in his Letter to the Abbe Raynal.
The italicised phrases in the following expression, "_These facts_ have
given the _last stab_ to _agonizing affection_, and _manly spirit bids_
us to _renounce forever_," etc., are so very like Mr. Paine, and so
entirely unlike Mr. Jefferson, that the cursory reader, with the
commonest understanding, would not fail to pronounce in favor of the
former being the author.
I now call attention to a striking peculiarity in regard to the mention
of the Scotch. It is found in the same paragraph, and is as follows: "At
this very time, too, they [our British brethren] are permitting their
chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our _common blood_,
but _Scotch_ and foreign _mercenaries_, to invade and destroy us." The
word mercenaries is used once before in the Declaration.
The writer of the Declaration is speaking of the "British brethren,"
whom he designates as "of our common blood," but excludes the _Scotch_
therefrom. Now, we know Mr. Paine to have been an Englishman, and that
in Junius he often inveighed bitterly against the _Scotch_. The reader
will remember what he said of Mr. Wedderburn, on page 195 of this work.
Mansfield was a Scotchman, and this fact embitters Junius. He speaks of
the Scotch "cunning," "treachery," and "fawning sycophancy," of "the
characteristic prudence, the selfish nationality, the indefatigable
smile, the persevering assiduity, the everlasting profession of a
discreet and moderate resentment." It is quite evident that the writer
of the Declaration did not consider the Scotch as included in the term
"British brethren," whom he warned, as he called them "_mercenaries_;"
nor as having the like origin, nor as being of the same race as the term
"common blood" indicates. These are facts which speak out of the
Declaration, and as such Jefferson could not have written them, for two
reasons:
1. He had no antipathy to the Scotch, but rather a liking. This is
seen in the selection of his teachers, both by his parents and
himself. At nine years of age he studies Latin, Greek, and French
under the Rev. Mr. Douglas, a Scotchman, living with the minister
at the same time. At fourteen, and after his father's death, he
goes away to attend the school of Mr. Murray, a Scotchman; and
when he goes to college at Williamsburg, being then a young man
grown, he becomes strongly attached to one Professor Small, a
Scotchman. In short, Jefferson was peculiarly attached to the
Scotch, and why?
2. Because he was nearer related to them by "_common blood_" than
to the English. He was of Welsh origin--a perfect Celt, and not a
Briton. Now, the Cimbri of Wales and the Gael of Scotland are of
the same blood, build, habits, and instincts. Jefferson, on Scotch
soil, would have been taken, from personal appearance, to be a
red-headed Scotchman, and a fine specimen at that. From "_common
blood_," then, he could not consistently have written it, if he
knew any thing about his origin, or comprehended what he was
writing.
But there is an argument in this connection, which goes toward the whole
instrument, showing that Mr. Jefferson could not possibly be the author
of it. In a special commentary of Mr. Jefferson's on this phrase,
"_Scotch and foreign mercenaries_," he misquotes the Declaration, which
he would not be likely to do if he wrote it. In volume viii, page 500,
of his works, he says: "When the Declaration of Independence was under
the consideration of Congress, there were two or three _unlucky_
expressions in it, which gave offense to some members. The words,
'_Scotch and other foreign auxiliaries_' excited the ire of a gentleman
or two of that country." In the phrase "Scotch and other foreign
auxiliaries," Jefferson is trying to quote the words "Scotch and foreign
_mercenaries_." There is a vast difference between the two words
"auxiliaries" and "mercenaries." But the former expresses the real
spirit of Jefferson, the latter of Paine. Entirely different sentiments
produced the two expressions. The style, also, is changed from Paine's
to Jefferson's, by putting in the word "other." It is thus changed from
the concise to the diffuse. Mr. Jefferson says this expression was
"unlucky;" and it still proves to be, near the close of a century.
Now, the word mercenaries, which, with the author of the Declaration,
means prostituted hirelings, is used twice in the instrument, but
auxiliaries, which would mean honorable allies, _is not used once_. It
is not strange that he should forget, for the sentiment is foreign to
his own character; and I had written my argument, and given my reasons
above why Mr. Jefferson could not possibly be the author of that
sentiment, a month before I found that Jefferson had misquoted the
Declaration. I reason from first principles, which rest on established
facts, the _silent language of nature_, compared with which the vain
babblings of men amount to nothing. For example, John Adams says that he
and Mr. Jefferson met as a sub-committee to draft the Declaration; that
he urged Jefferson to do it; that afterward they both met, and conned it
over, and he does not remember of making or suggesting a single
alteration. This Mr. Jefferson denies. He says there was _no_
sub-committee; that Adams has forgotten about it; that he [Jefferson]
drew it, and turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it, and
that Adams _did_ correct it.--Jefferson's Works, vol. vii, pages 304,
305. Here are two men, one eighty and the other eighty-eight, on whose
words history rests, differing materially about historic facts. The one
who can not quote an important passage correctly, as to fact or language
which he says he wrote himself, accuses the other of _forgetting_ about
a committee _which never existed_. _The reader must judge._
"Be it so." Let us find the feeling which produced this expression. It
is peculiar to Junius. See Letters 18, 34, and 44, where the sentence is
used. And now let me remark, _that the reader may be led to a just
criticism, and not ramble after vague and unmeaning expressions_, the
spirit of the writer must be found, the prominent sentiment of the heart
must _be felt_, the cause must be seen which shall give utterance to the
expression, "Be it so." How trifling it appears to the cursory reader!
But let me arrest your attention. Junius uses the expression three
times, and every time in connection with the sentiment of _dignity_. So,
also, in the Declaration. It is only produced in him by a feeling, and
the peculiar and particular feeling of _dignity_, in antithesis to
contempt, littleness, disrepute, or meanness. I will now give the
context. In Let. 18 he says: "You seem to think the channel of a
pamphlet more respectable, and better suited to the _dignity_ of your
cause, than a newspaper. Be it so."
In Let. 34 he says: "We are told by the highest judicial authority that
Mr. Vaughan's offer to purchase the reversion of a patent place in
Jamaica amounts to a _high misdemeanor_. Be it so; and if he deserves
it, let him be punished. _But_ the learned judge might have had a fairer
opportunity of displaying the powers of his eloquence. Having delivered
himself with so much energy upon the criminal nature and dangerous
consequences of any attempt to corrupt a man in your _grace's station_,
what would he have said to the minister himself, to that very privy
counselor, to that first commissioner of the treasury, who does not wait
for, but impatiently solicits the touch of corruption, who employs the
meanest of his creatures in these honorable services, and forgetting the
genius and fidelity of the secretary, _descends to_ apply to his
housebuilder for assistance?"
In Let. 44 he says: "There may be instances of contempt and insult to
the House of Commons, which do not fall within my own exceptions, yet,
in regard to the _dignity_ of the house, ought not to pass unpunished.
Be it so."
In the Declaration, paragraph 25, we read: "We might have been a free
and a great people together, but a communication of grandeur and
freedom, it seems, is below their _dignity_. Be it so, since they will
have it."
So much for the trifling little trinity of words made up of six letters,
when traced to their mental origin. The reader will see an aura of
_dignity_ always darting out from the sentence when used by Mr. Paine.
It might never have this connection in the soul of any other man. This
closes paragraph 25, and I proceed to the conclusion.
Paragraph 26. Here the nation is named. "The United States of America,"
are declared "free and independent States." ... "And for the support of
this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our
fortunes, and our sacred honor." Compare Common Sense, conclusion, as
follows: "Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or
doubtful curiosity, let each of us _hold out to his neighbor the hearty
hand of friendship_, and unite in drawing a line which, like an act of
oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the
name of whig and tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us
than those of _a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a
virtuous supporter of the_ RIGHTS OF MANKIND, _and of the_ FREE AND
INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA."
I have now gone through with the Declaration, both in a general and
special manner. In the former regard I have found it to be the soul's
image of Mr. Paine, in style, _order_, and construction, and, in the
latter, a complete synopsis of Common Sense. I have fully and
conclusively shown that the substance of _every paragraph_ is found in
Common Sense, with much of the language the same, and also that many
special, mental peculiarities, common to Mr. Paine, and wanting in Mr.
Jefferson, are found there. Now, Mr. Jefferson never before, nor since,
ever produced any thing like it in any of these particulars. If we take
a hasty review, we will find that in as many particulars as the
Declaration has, in just so many there is a reproduction of Mr. Paine.
In no single fact does the Declaration disagree with Mr. Paine. It does
with Mr. Jefferson in very many. I have shown also that it would be
impossible for Mr. Jefferson to steal it, for he would have to steal the
very soul of Mr. Paine, and write under its influence. This is above
proof, it is demonstration.
But I will hold the reader to history. It is a fact, well established,
_that he did not consult one single author thereon_. He says so himself.
Mr. Bancroft, the great American historian, says so. If I had found him
mistaken in this statement, I would have shown wherein. He is correct,
and it is unnecessary for me to add any thing to support his fame. But
will he change his conclusions, and will he re-write his own history to
support the statement that Mr. Jefferson produced it, not from "the
fullness of his own mind," but from the fullness of Common Sense? I
would not cast an aspersion, by the remotest insinuation, upon the
faithfulness of Mr. Bancroft as a historian. He penned the truth in
regard to a historic fact, but founded a conclusion thereon not
warranted by the fact. This will prove a lesson to the historian, and,
therefore, I will further remark, that a scientific method has also
dawned upon history. Voltaire struck the principle when he brought
history within the realm of natural causes, and Mr. Buckle began to
develop the method in an able manner, but his life was too short to
complete it. That he has erred in some particulars, may be true, but he
has traveled far out on the highways of nature, and, in the main, he is
right. In this age the historian has no business to write unless he
travels the same road. In fact, he would not be a _historian_, unless he
did, but merely the _chronicler_ of events. There is a vast distance in
the realm of mind between the high station of a historian, and the low
office of a chronicler. But, with this remark I pass on with my
argument.
Is it at variance with nature and the general order of things that Mr.
Jefferson should reproduce Common Sense, in all its small particulars,
as well as grand outlines, observing the same order in its construction,
a perfect epitome thereof, without studying it. But if he did study it,
and thus reproduce it, the theft would be too monstrous, and there is
not in human nature an impudence so audacious as to do such a thing
under the very eye of its author. It would have been a literary piracy
too disgraceful for human nature to commit or to endure. It would have
been a robbery too easy of detection by Mr. Paine, and there could not
be found on earth a man so devoid of shame, or of all personal honor,
or of self-respect as to have committed it. Now if Jefferson wrote the
Declaration of Independence, never was man more disgraced in the
literary world. But on the other hand, as chairman of a committee of
five to whom collectively belong the duty to produce it or procure it,
and who collectively shall share its honor, for him as such chairman, to
receive from the hand of Mr. Paine, as a gift to the nation, the
document which the country needed, there would be no dishonor connected
with it. It was nobody's business who wrote it. Mr. Paine and Jefferson
understood it, and none but themselves could be wronged. History records
that Mr. Paine and Jefferson were ever after bound heart and hand
together. Jefferson confided in the most faithful heart of the world.
But after Mr. Paine died, it was wrong for Mr. Jefferson to take
advantage of the silence of death and claim the document. It was the
wickedness of vanity and a narrow mind that would direct to be carved on
his tombstone, "_The author of the Declaration of Independence_." For
his own name's sake, it ought to be struck out with some friendly
chisel. It is as painful for me to write this as it would be to receive
the news of the death of a dear friend, who had died with some curse
upon his character. But while we look with compassion, let us tell the
truth.
At first, Mr. Jefferson did not write himself down the author of the
Declaration, and there seems to be a growth in this like all other
things. Here are the different stages:
1. Notes written on the spot, as events were passing, for the
truth of which he pledges himself to Heaven and earth. He writes
as follows:
"It appearing in the course of these debates that the colonies
of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and
South Carolina, were not yet matured for falling into the
parent stem, but that they were fast advancing to that state,
it was thought most prudent to wait awhile for them, and to
postpone the final decision to July 1st. But that this might
occasion as little delay as possible, a committee was
appointed to prepare a Declaration of Independence. The
committee were John Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert
R. Livingston, and myself. This was reported to the House on
Friday, the 28th of June, when it was read and ordered to lie
on the table." Works, vol. i, page 118.
There is no acknowledgment at this time. This is July, 1776. Mr.
Paine is in Philadelphia. Had Mr. Jefferson been the author, this
would have been the time for him to have recorded it, as he has
not failed to record all his other public acts. He is now
thirty-three years old.
2. Eleven years afterward, when in Paris, he writes to the editor
of the _Journal de Paris_ as follows, in regard to the history of
the Declaration: "I was on the spot and can relate to you this
transaction with precision. On the 7th of June, 1776, the
delegates from Virginia moved, in obedience to instructions from
their constituents, that Congress shall declare the thirteen
united colonies to be independent of Great Britain, and a
confederation should be formed to bind them together, and measures
be taken to procure the assistance of foreign powers. The House
ordered a punctual attendance of all their members the next day at
ten o'clock, and then resolved themselves into a committee of the
whole and entered on the discussion. It appeared in the course of
the debate that seven states, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia,
were decided for a separation; but that six others still
hesitated, to-wit: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, and South Carolina. Congress desirous of unanimity, and
seeing that the public mind was advancing rapidly to it, referred
the further discussion to the first of July, appointing in the
meantime, a committee to prepare a Declaration of Independence; a
second, to form articles for the confederation of the states; and
a third, to prepare measures for obtaining foreign aid. On the
28th of June, the Declaration of Independence was reported to the
House, and was laid on the table."--Works, vol. ix, pp. 310, 311.
There is no acknowledgment that he was the author of it yet. This
is August, 1787. Mr. Paine is in Paris, just on the eve of
starting for London. Jefferson is forty-four years old.
3. In September, 1809, in answer to a proposition to publish his
writings, after mentioning many of them, he says: "I say nothing
of numerous drafts of reports, resolutions, declarations, etc.,
drawn as a member of Congress, or of the legislature of Virginia,
such as the Declaration of Independence, Report on the Money Mint
of the United States, the Act of Religious Freedom, etc., etc.
These having become the acts of public bodies, there can be no
personal claim to them." This is nearly three months after the
death of Mr. Paine.--Works, vol. v, p. 466. And here he says he
makes no personal claim to it. He is now sixty-six years old.
4. In May, 1819, he gives the same account as first above given.
Mr. Paine has been dead about ten years. He makes no
acknowledgment yet that he was the author of it, but in the same
account pledges himself to Heaven and earth for the truth of the
statement.--Works, vol. vii, page 123. He is now seventy-six years
old.
5. In January, 1821, he indirectly acknowledges himself to be the
author, but with a great deal of ambiguity. He takes the same
account as given first and third above, but interpolates into it a
clause, which I have placed in brackets in the passage which I
give, as follows: "It appearing, in the course of these debates,
that the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, and South Carolina were not yet matured for falling into
the parent stem, but that they were fast advancing to that state,
it was thought most prudent to wait awhile for them, and to
postpone the final decision to July 1st; but, that this might
occasion as little delay as possible, a committee was appointed to
prepare a Declaration of Independence. The committee were John
Adams, Dr. Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert R. Livingston, and
myself. [Committees were also appointed at the same time to
prepare a plan of confederation for the colonies, and to state the
terms proper to be proposed for foreign alliance. The committee
for drawing the Declaration of Independence desired me to do it.
It was accordingly done, and, being approved by them, I] reported
[it] to the House on Friday, the 28th of June, when it was read,
and ordered to lie on the table."--Works, vol. i, pages 17 and
18. This is the first insinuation. I say insinuation, for the
sentence, "_It_ was accordingly done, and I reported it," is not
frank and outspoken, as it ought to be, if he meant to say he
drafted it. Mr. Paine has been dead almost twelve years, but Mr.
Jefferson has dropped the pledge to Heaven and earth for the truth
of it, which he has heretofore been careful to put in. He is now
seventy-eight years old.
6. In August, 1823, he now comes forward, and says: "The committee
of five met; no such thing as a sub-committee was proposed, but
they unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draft. I
consented. I drew it."--Works, vol. vii, page 304. John Adams had
said there was a sub-committee of two, viz., Jefferson and
himself, appointed by the other three. But Jefferson says there
was not--"that John Adams had forgotten about it." Query: Can a
person forget about something which never was? To this statement
there is no "pledge to Heaven and earth." He is eighty years old.
7. In the year 1825 he says once that he wrote it, and once that
he drafted it; but no "pledge to Heaven and earth" as before.
Now, he never acknowledged that he was the author of it in any of his
works before the death of Mr. Paine. He gave several full accounts of
the whole transaction, and calls on Heaven and earth to witness the
truth of his statements. About the time Mr. Paine dies he says he can
make no personal claim to it. Ten years after Mr. Paine's death, he very
ambiguously claims it, as if his pen refused to write it, and drops his
oath. But twelve years after Mr. Paine's death, and he now in his
eightieth year, he first says he drew it. Was he too _modest_ to affirm
it till he had got into his dotage? The reader must answer. It is with
painful feelings I record the above facts. "But they are too true, and
the more is the pity." But to proceed.
Mr. Jefferson could not have followed so closely Common Sense in the
production of the Declaration of Independence, if he had studied it for
a whole year with this special purpose in view. For, the style he could
not have imitated; the figures of speech he could not have adopted; the
impassioned eloquence would have stuck to the dry leaves; the exact
order would have been missed; the fine shades of sentiment would have
been blotted out; the complex ideas he would have failed to grasp; its
architectural plan he could not have idealized; and its construction
would never have arisen from the chaos of scattered materials which he
would have gleaned. And, above all, the personal character of Mr. Paine
would have been left out. He would have failed in every one of these
things. And why? Want of mental similarity thereto. This, and nothing
else.
I will sum up his mentality as I find it in his writings. I have given
you Mr. Paine's already. In this I shall be brief, speaking only of
those powers which would be incompatible with, or necessary to, the
production of the Declaration.
Mr. Jefferson was a zealous partisan. Mr. Paine was a consummate
statesman. Here was the great difference between the two men. Those
qualities of the mind which produce the former are very unlike those
which produce the latter. The former mind must be narrow and selfish,
the latter broad and generous. This will take in the whole world, that
but a small portion of it. The partisan has an understanding subject to
the vice and discipline of cunning; the statesman has an understanding
subject to the noblest and most generous affections. It was this which
made Mr. Jefferson such a grand success as a party leader, and that,
too, which perhaps saved the nation from passing into the hands of the
monarchists. Without these consummate powers of the partisan, it would
have been impossible for Mr. Jefferson to have taken command of the
people, to have organized his party, to have marshaled his forces, and
with his army of followers to have put royalty under his heel. How
unlike Washington and John Adams, who preceded him. Hamilton, who would
toast a president of America and give three cheers for George the Third
of England, ruled Washington and governed the nation. John Adams, who
was so beguiled with royalty and the British constitution, could not
heartily sympathize with the people; the dupe of his own passions, he
was unfit to be the ruler of a free people. But Jefferson, while
secretary under Washington, began to form his party and draw his party
lines. Through Freneau he drove Washington to cry out: "By God, I had
rather be in my grave than in my present situation!" And, afterward, the
party he was marshaling made John Adams, then president of the United
States, desert his post for seven months, at the most trying crisis of
this government. But the cold, unfeeling partisanship of the great
democrat saved the nation.
The other crowning difference between the two men is, Mr. Paine had
extraordinary genius, Mr. Jefferson had not; and by genius I mean a
lively constructive and comprehensive mind, one that can generalize
facts and deduce principles therefrom, one that can idealize and build
in the imagination what it would put into material shape or on paper. If
this comparison be true (and the reader is at liberty to bring facts to
contradict it), then Mr. Jefferson could not produce the Declaration for
want of capacity.
The Declaration is the work of a master. It is the work of one with
_great experience_ in the art of composition, one who produced the whole
in the ideal before he touched pen to paper, and one who followed plan
and specifications with unerring precision. It is a work of the most
finished rhetoric, and produced with such skill as to defy adverse
criticism. It shows vast labor and time bestowed upon its execution. In
its mechanism I have never seen its equal in all my reading and study.
It is the most masterly work of genius I ever saw in composition. It
stands alone in the world of letters. There is nothing its equal which
has come down to us from the ages, and I know of no one save Thomas
Paine capable of producing it. That he was a master in the art of
composition, no one can dispute, and he frequently takes pains to give
the principles which reveal his success; here is one of them, to be
found in his Letter to the Abbe Raynal: "To fit the powers of thinking
and the turn of language to the subject, so as to bring out a clear
conclusion that shall hit the point in question, and nothing else, is
the true criterion of writing," See a fine passage on this point in the
introduction to the same letter. Now Jefferson had not the genius to
produce the Declaration.
If we look also at several passages in the Declaration we can only feel
their full force after knowing the previous career of Mr. Paine as
Junius in England. Take for example the two paragraphs, 24 and 25, the
one of the king and the other of the "British brethren." We see in the
one the proud disdain and haughty contempt for the tyrant; in the other
that tender sympathy for the English people, with a sly thrust at the
Scotch, and then the wounded affection which comes from betrayal of
friendship--"the last stab to agonizing affection." And then regathering
himself from the affliction of a broken heart, he exclaims, "Manly
spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren." But _no_,
this can not be done, and in the next breath he says, "we must endeavor
to forget our former love for them;" and then comes the wail of anguish
in the loss of his native country, "We might have been a great and a
free people together, but a communication of grandeur and of freedom it
seems is below their dignity. Be it so." He now bends beneath the hand
of fate and cries out, "I acquiesce in our eternal separation," but
persist in denouncing it. This is the very picture of Mr. Paine's own
heart. It is a pitch of enthusiasm and anguish which Mr. Jefferson had
neither circumstance in his life nor capacity in his soul to work
himself up to. It is neither art nor contrivance, it is the recorded
beating of his own heart, the sequel to his previous life.
Take again the passage on human slavery. "He has waged cruel war against
human nature itself." It is well known that Mr. Paine, before he wrote
Common Sense, attracted the eyes of the world to him by denouncing human
slavery in the most impassioned eloquence. This piece he termed "Serious
Thoughts," etc. Herein he hopes when the Declaration is made that "our
first gratitude to the Almighty may be shown by an act of Continental
legislation, which shall put a stop to the importation of negroes,
soften the hard fate of those already here, and in time procure their
freedom." And he says, long afterward, to the French inhabitants of
Louisiana who wished the power to import and enslave Africans, "Dare you
put up a petition to Heaven for such a power without fearing to be
struck from the earth by its justice?" But the person who wrote the
passage on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration could never
have kept a slave in bondage, if any thing can be gathered from the
nobility, the manliness, the justice, and the philanthropy of its
spirit. But Jefferson, while he has left on record his opposition _in
words_ to slavery, has left also on record his acts to contradict both
them and the Declaration. I here draw the veil over Jefferson as a
slaveholder.
While Mr. Jefferson was far above the average mind, yet from his mental
make-up, either in his head, heart, character, or capacity, he could not
be the author of the Declaration of Independence. Neither in the
circumstances of his previous life nor personal history, neither in the
heart nor the head, can we find a foundation for the famous document. I
know of but one man American born, at that day, with sufficient genius
to write it--Benjamin Franklin--and he would have failed in the style
and language, and especially in those fine strokes of the affection.[A]
For Mr. Paine to write the Declaration and be ready to hand it to the
chairman of the committee, is characteristic of the man. He did the same
thing at the "Thatched House" tavern meeting in England in 1791. Mr.
Horne Tooke who signed the Address and Declaration as chairman of the
meeting, received the document privately from the hand of Mr. Paine, and
had Mr. Tooke not afterward disclaimed the authorship of it when charged
upon him, Mr. Paine would never have revealed the secret. It was
revealed in this manner: Mr. Tooke having spoken in commendation of the
Declaration which he signed "was jocularly accused of praising his own
work, and to free him from this embarrassment [says Mr. Paine], and the
repeated trouble of mentioning the author, _as he has not failed to do_,
I make no hesitation in saying, I drew up the publication," etc. Now,
Mr. Paine was never guilty of _praising his own work_, and nowhere can I
find that he ever praised the Declaration of Independence as a work, or
that he ever mentioned Junius but once. [B]Had Mr. Jefferson been the
author of the Declaration, Mr. Paine no doubt would have called it "_A
masterly performance_."
And thus it is, his hand is seen, though not publicly acknowledged, in
all those first principles upon which the fabric of our government
rests. And it was the peculiarity of this great man _to do the work, and
let others carry off the honors_.
"But truth shall conquer at the last;
For round and round we run,
And ever the right comes uppermost,
And ever is justice done."
NOTE A.
Truly speaking, there is no original Declaration in existence. There are
several "original" Declarations extant, all differing somewhat. John
Adams had one, Benjamin Franklin, it is said, had one in England.
Richard Henry Lee and others had "originals," all in manuscript. The one
I have followed may be found in Marshall's Life of Washington, and does
not differ, only in a few minor respects, from the one in Jefferson's
works, Washington edition. The real _original_ was destroyed as soon as
copied, and we have only nature to guide us in the study of one which is
almost a faithful copy.
NOTE B.
In 1787, with regard to the Scotch and the Hanover succession, Paine
says: "The present reign, by embracing the Scotch, has tranquillized and
conciliated the spirit that disturbed the two former reigns.
_Accusations were not wanting at that time to reprobate the policy as
tinctured with ingratitude toward those who were the immediate means of
the Hanover succession._" This _policy_ is what so embittered _Junius_
toward the Scotch. See his letter to the king (No. 35), in which he
says: "Nor do I mean to condemn the policy of giving _some_
encouragement to the novelty of their affections for the House of
Hanover." Now, Paine says, in connection with the above quotation, which
parallels with Junius: "The brilliant pen of Junius was drawn forth, but
in vain. It enraptured without convincing; and though in the plentitude
of its rage it might be said to give elegance to bitterness, yet the
policy survived the blast." Fifteen years had obliterated the prejudice
of Paine toward the Scotch.
For this mention of the Scotch by Mr. Paine, in his Prospects on the
Rubicon, which had escaped my notice, I am indebted to the critical eye
of Wm. Henry Burr, of Washington City.
FOOTNOTES:
[A] Since writing the above criticism, I sent for and obtained
Theodore Parker's work entitled Historic Sketches. Previous to this I
had not read a word of the work. With this explanation I will give two
extracts from the work, pp. 281, 282: "Mr. Jefferson had intellectual
talents greatly superior to the common mass of men, and for the times
his opportunities of culture in youth, were admirable."
"But I can not think his mind a great one. I can not point out any name
of those times, which may stand in the long interval [of capacity]
between the names of Franklin and John Adams. In the shorter space
between Adams and Jefferson there were many. There was a certain lack of
solidity; his intellect was not very profound, not very comprehensive.
Intelligent, able, adroit as he was, his success as an intellectual man
was far from being entire or complete. He exhibited no spark of genius,
nor any remarkable degree of original, natural talent."
This so coincides with what I had written, I add it to excite the reader
to an investigation, for I know full well, the intellectual fame of Mr.
Jefferson will not bear looking into.
[B] See Note B.
GRAND OUTLINES OF THOMAS PAINE'S LIFE.
Were I to write the biography of Thomas Paine, I should, with a bold
hand, transcend the low office of a chronicler, and hand him down in
history thus:
Thomas Paine was of Quaker origin. In this he inherited more than
paternal flesh and blood, more than family form and feature: he had
transmitted to him the principles of George Fox--principles which were,
when Mr. Paine was born, more than a hundred years old. These were a
reliance on the internal evidences of the conscience, prompting to moral
action and to the love of God. In this the shadow of Fox fell athwart
the Scriptures. The internal light was with him greater than that which
shone down on the centuries from Jesus of Nazareth. The religions, and
creeds, and opinions of the world were to be brought to the bar of
conscience for trial, and "the motions of the spirit"--not the teachings
of the Bible--were to be taken in evidence. His principles were
universal in the heart of man--not particular in any special book.
To these religious principles was added simplicity of conduct in all the
ways of life. In religious or civil affairs, whether at home or abroad,
with his fellow-man or his God, he was to obey the behests of nature,
and not of man. To avoid the extravagance of dress, to walk with
dignity and grace, to deal uprightly, to love mercy, to rely on the
light within, to train the heart to courage and the head to
understanding, became the chief aim of all the followers of Fox. The
consequence was, they never bent the knee to the forms of worship, nor
uncovered the head to the forms of fashion. To the Quaker, a virtuous,
upright, and honorable laborer was of as much consequence, in the line
of respect and the eyes of God, as the noblest lord of the realm. No
outward show, no pageantry of church or court, could awaken him to
respect. He looked within: there he felt the movings of the spirit,
there he saw the image of his God, there he went in to worship.
What must be the result of this religion? It must transmit
self-reliance, fortitude, courage, and morality to the individual, and a
sympathy for mankind which will grant the equality of rights, and
produce a contempt for outward show, for outward forms and ceremonies.
These characteristics will be transmitted to children's children, and
democracy is born into a race of men before they know it, or before they
know how or why. But here an effect must not be taken for a cause. It
was the democratic principle abroad in the world which produced the
Quaker religion, not this religion which produced it, and this religion
became afterward an engine for thrusting democracy more deeply into the
constitution of man. It had a work to do, and it did it by inheritance.
It was the democracy of Cromwell, "that accomplished President of
England," which could sympathize with the religion of Fox, which could
see no wrong in the man, and which could protect him from persecution.
On the other hand, it was the religion of Penn, which would insult the
pride of nobles by not uncovering itself, and bowing in the presence of
royalty.
Now, every religion has a birth, growth, culmination, and subsequent
decay. It culminates in the production of some great man, who
represents, and at the same time transcends, the causes which produced
him, and who afterward abandons the religion which gave him birth. It
has then fulfilled its work, and will eventually die. Jesus of Nazareth
was the fulfillment of the Jewish religion; Luther, of the Catholic. The
minor religions obey the same law. Unitarianism culminated in Theodore
Parker; Quakerism, in Thomas Paine. At the culminating point, the
typical child which is born, grows up, and comes out from or tramples
upon the religion which produced him, and is called a "come-outer," a
"protester," an "image-breaker," or an "infidel." But he has been
produced by causes over which he had no control, and is the result for
which they existed. With him the religion declines, and eventually will
expire.
The Quaker religion culminated on the 29th of January, 1737, in the
little town of Thetford, and county of Norfolk, England, in the birth of
Thomas Paine. Here Nature deserted her connection with the meeting, and
took up her abode in the soul of the child. She has concentrated herein
the democracy of centuries, and the special forces of a hundred years.
The great principles of democracy have all been gathered here, and
organized into a power which will move the world.
Nature has also given a hardy physical constitution, without corruption
of blood or bodily disease, and this health of body shall carry him safe
through the three-score and ten, with a fraction of years to spare. Let
us now follow the lines of his life.
A religious antagonism between father and mother, both before and after
his birth, strengthened the child's mind, for we grow strong only
through antagonism. But he inclined to the Quaker principles of the
father, who had him privately named, and did not suffer him to be
baptized, though he was afterward confirmed by a bishop, through the
influence of an aunt. But the outward acts of omission or commission, by
priest or parent, counted nothing in the life of the child; for he had
thoughts of his own as soon as old enough to reflect, and he had great
gifts of inspiration, for there came to him thoughts "which would bolt
into the mind of their own accord." Of this intuition or inspiration he
says: "I have always made it a rule to treat those voluntary visitors
with civility, taking care to examine, as well as I was able, if they
were worth entertaining, and it is from them I have acquired almost all
the knowledge that I have." Here those inherited principles, the result
of previous ages of thought, concentrated within the child's mind, began
to teach him, and he listened to their instruction at an early age. "I
well remember, when about seven or eight years of age," says he,
"hearing a sermon read by a relation of mine, who was a great devotee of
the _church_ [not of the Quaker meeting], upon the subject of what is
called _redemption by the death of the son of God_. After the sermon was
ended, I went into the garden, and as I was going down the garden steps,
for I perfectly recollect the spot, I revolted at the recollection of
what I had heard, and thought to myself that it was making God Almighty
act like a passionate man, that killed his son when he could not revenge
himself in any other way; and, as I was sure a man would be hanged that
did such a thing, I could not see for what purpose they preached such
sermons." Here the young child's mind was shocked, and the "voice of
God" within taught him much wisdom--more than he could get in all the
sermons of the bishops.
His father, from Quaker principles, gave him moral instruction which
never left him in after life. He sent him also, to a grammar school,
where he learned some Latin and became acquainted with the subject
matter of all the Latin books used in school; but this was clandestinely
done, as the Quakers were opposed to the books in which the language was
taught. He says he did not study Latin for the above reason, and because
he had no taste for it. But at school and at home he gained a useful
stock of learning, "the bent of his mind being to science."
But when the lad was thirteen he was taken from school, as it had long
been too heavy a tax upon his father, and he was put to work in the shop
as stay-maker. He enters into full sympathy with his father, and works
by his side three years. The "good father," as he afterward calls him,
pays out no more for the son's education; he has already been "sorely
pressed" for this purpose.
But during these three years at the stay-making business, many thoughts
have "bolted into his mind," strange "voluntary visitors," talking of
war, the army and navy. These thoughts have been "heated by the false
heroism" of his former master, and have set the lad's mind on fire,
burning up all peace and contentment. So in the year 1753, a little the
rise of sixteen, he began to carve out his own fortune by going to sea
in the privateer, "King of Prussia." The "good father" must have
"thought him lost," but this was a phantom of the imagination in both
father and son. There is a principle in him which shall hold him steady
on land and sea. Restless and venturesome, driven by a force he wots not
of, the little island of Britain could not confine him, much less his
father's shop. Here he satisfies the war spirit, and tinges his
skeptical mind with a slight shade of sailors' superstition. Yet with
this adventure of "false heroism against him" in setting out in life, he
passes through a schooling with the world which shall make for him
mightily in the end. He never considered this beginning in his favor,
and has said but little about it. I can not find out how long he lived
on the sea, but he turns up at Sandwich five or six years afterward as
master stay-maker. Here he married to Mary Lambert, a young woman of
much personal worth, who, dying a year afterward, leaves a shade on his
mind for life.
But his employment did not suit the turn of his mind, and near the close
of 1763 he entered the employ of government as exciseman. For a faithful
performance of his duty he was dismissed from this office, because the
impartial performance of that duty would expose him to the censure of
the power which invested him with office. I say for a faithful
performance of his duty he was dismissed, and for these reasons I say
it:
1. When he is restored to the same office afterward upon his
petition are these words, "No complaint of the _least dishonesty_
or intemperance appeared against me." And so it was not for a
dereliction of duty.
2. Mr. Paine was a man of uncommon abilities, and it could not be
for want of capacity.
3. Excise officers were compelled sometimes to violate the law to
favor the nobility and the court of the realm, or suffer the
penalty of dismissal. See Vale's Life of Paine, p. 19.
Honest and capable he has wounded the corrupt heart of the government.
Too proud to retract, too honest to confess, he is turned out of office
to brood over his offense. The government has also stabbed him to the
heart, and the stab reaches to the most tender chords, his personal
pride, his honor. This sets on fire his whole nature, yet darkly
secretive it becomes molten lava in his own breast. It will some day
burst forth a consuming fire. "Vengeance is mine," says the war-spirit
within him. "Bide thy time," says caution. "Keep thy own council," says
secretiveness. He has now an object in view, his resolution is made.
"I will strike the dagger to the heart of profligate lords and
courtiers. I will trample on the pride of kings, and fortified with that
proud integrity, that disdain to triumph or to yield, I will advocate
the rights of man." He now steps forth to begin his _life's work_.
He waits not long to brood over his miseries, but immediately sets off
for London to inform the mind. A little the rise of twenty-eight he
enters fully into the study of the natural sciences, and teaches in an
academy to defray expenses. He attends the philosophical lectures of Mr.
Martin and Ferguson, and becomes acquainted with Dr. Bevis, the
astronomer and member of the Royal Society. He made himself master of
the globes and orrery, and acquired a knowledge of _natural philosophy_,
a term which then took in a wide field of science. We find him well
acquainted with chemistry, and also the higher mathematics. Here he
doubtless studied French, for afterward we find when called from an
active life to visit France he could read but not speak the language.
Yet this, as well as rhetoric and law, and many other branches of
learning, he could acquire while in the employ of government.
It is evident that while at London this year he threw his whole soul
into study.
How easily he could have risen to preferment in any branch of natural
science must have been well known to himself when coming in contact with
these great minds of his age. But he has other work on hand.
There are many reasons for concluding he became acquainted with Franklin
this year, among them these five:
1. Because he was eager to cultivate the acquaintance of great men
of science, and Franklin, then in London, stood at the head of
all.
2. Franklin was easy of access to the friends of learning.
3. Mr. Paine would be brought in hearty sympathy with the
representative of the new world, who was at court, to represent
the rights of man.
4. At this very time, Feb. 3, 1766, when we know Mr. Paine was
attending to his studies and cultivating the acquaintance of the
learned, Dr. Franklin was brought more conspicuously before the
English nation than ever before, or thereafter, by undergoing an
examination in the House of Commons upon the policy of repealing
the Stamp Act; and never were the great talents of this great man
exhibited so fully and favorably as then.
5. Mr. Paine says: "The favor of Dr. Franklin's _friendship_ I
possessed in England [and _friendship_ with Mr. Paine means _time
to prove it_], and my introduction to this part of the world was
through his _patronage_." Patronage means to aid or promote a
design. This _design_, and this _friendship_ formed upon which it
was founded, would take some few years with both of these men, for
they were both secretive, reserved, and noncommittal, slow in
forming attachments, and extremely cautious in the selection of
_friends_. "The first foundation of friendship," says Junius, "is
not the power of conferring benefits, but the _equality_ with
which they are received and may be returned."
Mr. Paine now makes application to be restored to the office from which
he was dismissed. On his petition was written: "JULY 4TH, 1766; to be
restored on a proper vacancy." The FOURTH OF JULY is ominous. Great
events are in store for this young man within the next ten years. He
quits the society of the learned and the halls of learning, and goes
down at the most hopeful and ambitious period of life into this
"inferior office of the revenue" to serve for the "petty pittance of
less than fifty pounds a year." Does he go there to satisfy his taste
for learning, or to get rich? No; but to reach the object of his
ambition. He goes there to spy out the meanness, the corruption, the
villainy, the abandoned profligacy of the British Government.
The British Government has now a masked enemy who is coming in and going
out at the nation's doors, not a spy upon her liberties, but her
villainies, a foe to the one and a friend to the other.
But he has not forsaken his studies, he is just entering upon them.
Taking up English history he makes it a study, which becomes the history
of the civilized world, for it reaches out into Spain, France, Austria,
Prussia, Russia, America, India, and Rome. Mr. Paine followed its lines
into all countries. He also made a study of her laws and the principles
of her constitution, and read the French commentators thereon, at the
same time he had an eye to politics and the personal history of her
living public men. For three years and a half, together with his public
duties, he labored to lay a foundation for a long and active literary
life.
Do you ask how I know this? I answer, because when he came to America he
was thus accomplished, and when he went into the excise office he was
not.
It is now six years since he first entered the employ of government, one
year of which time he spent in the arts and sciences, and nearly four as
student, officer, and detective for the sons of freedom throughout the
world. He is, by nature, a detective of the highest order. He has formed
the friendship of Benjamin Franklin, who, at the court, is also a
detective, and what he knows of America and the English court shall now
be made known. He has written "numberless trifles" for the public press
to get his hand in, and now, having a definite plan formed, and a noble
object in view, he opens the new year of 1769, with something which
indeed is _new_. It was the first Letter of "Junius," named after Junius
Brutus, who stabbed Cæsar for having usurped the liberties of Rome.
Junius thrust home his dagger. This stab went to the heart of a rotten
court, and, since Cromwell, it was the greatest thing that ever happened
to England. The people read it with mingled sentiments of fear and hope;
the partisan read it with fear and rage; the scholar, with feelings of
respect; the courtesan, with pallor on his cheek, and trembling in his
limbs; and the king and ministers, with sentiments of torture and
frenzy. But when Franklin took it up, with what feelings of hope and
pride did he read and re-read the paragraphs in regard to the colonies,
which began with this sentence: "A series of inconsistent measures has
alienated the colonies from their duty as subjects, and from their
natural affection to their common country." This is the key note to the
Declaration of Independence, which shall appear seven years afterward.
The dagger was driven to the hilt. Paine long afterward said: "The cause
of America made me an author."
Three years, to a day, and he is Junius no more. His object was
revolution on British soil, the ministers brought to trial, and the king
deposed. He called for a leader in vain--he wrote against fate. But the
work must go on. He consecrates himself anew to the cause; he dedicates
his life to the good of man. Friend, kindred, wife, and the dear, native
land, weigh lightly in the balance against the "_business of a world_."
He leaves them all. His mind has been liberated from the prejudices of
an island by the study of astronomy, and a life on the sea, and schooled
by disappointment in political strife, he turns his face to the _West_.
He has left his second wife; parted with her forever. Mr. Paine was a
man of strong personal attachment; he had deep and lasting affection.
But what was wife to the "_business of a world_." Long after this
separation, in his old age, after he had gone through two revolutions,
the American and the French, Mrs. Paine, though not agreeing with Thomas
in religious opinions, on hearing him disrespectfully spoken of because
he had written the Age of Reason, indignantly left the company of his
revilers. And Mr. Paine, when asked why did you leave your wife, would
respond: "I had a cause; it is no business of any body." True to her
during life, and she to him, there is more in this than has been
revealed.
But before he leaves England there is a definite plan formed, it is
revolution and reconciliation; but if not reconciliation, it is
revolution and independence. Tyranny shall be destroyed at all hazards.
He prepares himself for war, "and if the English Government wins in the
contest," says Paine, "she wins from me my life." He leaves all his
world's goods for the support of his wife, his capital stock is his pen.
Franklin understands it all. He knows full well this son of a Quaker,
this Junius of the quill, and he feels the need of him for America's
sake, and that scientific head of his thinks soundly on the work which
shall tell for the ages. Franklin was then acknowledged to be the
greatest man in the world, as he was; and the same judgment which never
led him wrong, and which made for him renown, pronounced also on the
character and abilities of Thomas Paine. These two men perfectly agreed
in politics and religion, and this covers the whole realm of opinion.
Their origin and their leading traits of character were the same;
secretive, cautious, courageous, and proud of heart, witty and
sarcastic, deeply read in the history of the world and of the human
heart, having come out of the loins of toil and the lap of poverty, the
history of their lives blend and conspire to unite their affections and
direct their labors. What these two men shall do, the world is yet too
stupid to think about. But their plan is made in England, and under the
patronage of the one the other is introduced to America.
If you truly believe Benjamin Franklin to be a fool, let me tell you how
you can demonstrate it. Prove to the world that Thomas Paine began his
literary life in America, and that Franklin intrusted the greatest work
of a nation, and the business of a world to an obscure English
exciseman, without previous history or character, and your point is
made. Yet this is just what chronologists would have us believe; _but
history delves beneath recorded events_.
Franklin was then an old man, he had almost reached his three-score
years and ten; Paine was thirty-one years and twelve days the younger.
Franklin has fifteen years of life and labor before him yet; Paine
thirty-four. The young scion of Democracy is growing up from the same
root by the side of the old stalk. Here youth supports old age, and the
boughs interlock, and they shall thus stand firm, supported by each
other against the terrible shocks which are yet to come during the
"hurricane months" of political revolution. "I am the sole depository of
my own secret, and it shall perish with me," said Junius; but Franklin
had been taught of nature, and the secret was kept.
Near the close of the year 1774, Junius lands in America, and begins to
dwell in the capital of the colonies, Philadelphia. Many things
conspired to take him there: it was the Quaker city of brotherly love;
it was Franklin's home; and, above all, the Continental Congress sat
there.
Immediately, that is, within two months after landing, he is employed as
editor of the Pennsylvania Magazine. He did not write as editors do, but
his contributions appeared over the signature of ATLANTICUS--a name
which, like Junius, was the shadow of the writer. From the first he
wielded a mighty pen, and his contributions were noticed and highly
commended. The following extract is from one of his first efforts in
America, and consequently stands almost a year closer to Junius than
Common Sense. As it shows the hand of a master, long trained at the art,
I give it here, as a perfect sample of Junius:
"Though nature is gay, polite, and generous abroad, she is sullen,
rude, and niggardly at home. Return the visit, and she admits you
with all the suspicion of a miser, and all the reluctance of an
antiquated beauty retired to replenish her charms. Bred up in
antediluvian notions, she has not yet acquired the European taste
of receiving visitants in her dressing-room; she locks and bolts
up her private recesses with extraordinary care, as if not only
resolved to preserve her hoards, but to conceal her age, and hide
the remains of a face that was young and lovely in the days of
Adam. He that would view nature in her undress, and partake of her
internal treasures, must proceed with the resolution of a robber,
if not a ravisher. She gives no invitation to follow her to the
caverns: the external earth makes no proclamation of the internal
stores, but leaves to chance and industry the discovery of the
whole. In such gifts as nature can annually recreate she is noble
and profuse, and entertains the whole world with the interest of
her fortunes, but watches over the capital with the care of a
miser. Her gold and jewels lie concealed in the earth in caves of
utter darkness; the hoards of wealth, heaps upon heaps, mould in
the chests, like the riches of the necromancer's cell. It must be
very pleasant to an adventurous speculatist to make excursions
into these gothic regions, and in his travels he may possibly come
to a cabinet, locked up in some rocky vault, whose treasures shall
reward his toil, and enable him to shine, on his return, as
splendidly as nature herself."
* * * * *
The massacre of Lexington takes place the 19th of April, this year.
Paine had been but a few months in America. Franklin is in the middle of
the Atlantic, on his way home. He arrives in May, and the _Declaration
of Independence_ is now in existence, but only conceived in thought. It
will have to bide its time, locked up there in the brain; besides,
events are yet to happen which shall be put in it, and the country is
not yet prepared for it. The people have no unanimity of sentiment.
Congress is weak and trifling; it wants reconciliation, and permits the
British to land troops, to destroy the liberties of the people, and to
steal the powder of the colonies. The country must be roused to
sentiments of patriotism, and the magazines must be filled with powder,
to support the Declaration of Independence, before it appears to the
world.
Mr. Paine now sets about the work. He wishes the American people to be
consistent--to not talk of liberty without acting it out; and he gives
them "Serious Thoughts" on negro slavery to think about. It is a feeler,
sent out to test public sentiment, and to put the people to thinking in
the right direction. He struck--as he always did--when the iron was hot;
and, between the hammer and the iron, sparks were emitted which kept
burning in America for ninety years. His words were: "Stop the
importation of negroes, soften the hard fate of those already here, and
in time procure their freedom." He believed that the justice of Heaven
would some day blot it out. This piece brought Mr. Paine many friends
and high hopes. Common Sense shortly afterward came from the press, to
stir up revolution in the hearts of the people.
He now turns his attention to chemistry, experiments in the art of
making saltpeter cheaply, publishes his researches, and organizes a
company to gratuitously supply the public magazines with powder. He is
boldly working out his plan. He gives Common Sense to each colony by
copyright, and the poor, ignorant dolts of that age and this age wonder
why he did not make himself rich in the sale of it. The fools must learn
that he was making patriots, not pounds and pence, to serve his purpose
and plan. Franklin smiles at the work as it goes on, for to effect a
revolution the country will be sorely in need of powder and patriotism.
But Washington they can rely on for this latter. When others fail whose
mouths were always open to profess liberty, he shall stand firm; when
_they_ desert the cause, he shall strike the harder and more nobly.
When war begins public sentiment changes quickly. The American people
are now ready for war, made so within a few months. Congress comes
together with more strength in its back-bone, more pluck in its heart;
and, on the 7th of June, a committee of five is appointed to draft a
Declaration of Independence. Thomas Paine makes a concise reproduction
of Common Sense; constructs it upon mechanical principles, so that it
will first convince the understanding, and, having entered the head,
will soon reach the heart, for it is made on purpose to storm the
passions of men. He privately hands it to Thomas Jefferson. It is quite
fortunate that he was chairman of that committee. But in the act the
_honor_ of Thomas Paine is pledged for secrecy; it is an honor without
spot, and he locks up the act forever in his own breast with Junius.
The Declaration is read on the streets amid cheers; it is read in
churches with thanksgiving and praise; it is read in the legislative
halls of the states, and at the firesides of patriots; it is read in the
camp of the soldier, and by officers to their battalions; it is
proclaimed by the congress of the new nation, and from the house-tops to
all mankind. It is the second child of a man who has on his hands the
"BUSINESS OF A WORLD."
Now let the nation buckle on its armor, and look forward to peace won
only in blood. The Declaration of Independence is an easy thing
compared with what is to come. We shall see this man's work in war.
Washington is at the head of the army; John Adams, whose head is a
perfect battery of war forces, is at the head of the board of war. Upon
this man's office depends more than any other in the nation, for he is
_Secretary of War_. Mr. Paine has no office, no power of position, not
known to the nation, nor to the world, for Common Sense was thought to
be the production of Franklin or John Adams. Thomas Paine had great
faith in Washington, not so much in Lee. John Adams distrusted
Washington, and called him "a dolt," but put great confidence in Lee, an
English deserter, and more than an American traitor. Paine never
misjudged a man; John Adams never judged a man rightly. As colonies,
this country has done much for independence; as a nation, nothing. She
is now to be tried.
Paine enlists as a soldier with the "Flying Camp."
The British fleet is repulsed from Charleston, S.C., and can not land
her army of English, Scotch, and Hessians; but now, in August, she
effects a landing on Long Island. Washington is there with twenty
thousand men with guns, but no soldiers in arms. He loses a battle on
Long Island, and retreats therefrom. In October, he loses the battle of
White Plains. In November, Fort Washington, with two thousand six
hundred men, and our best cannon and arms are taken by the British
command, and Fort Lee falls, leaving commissary and quartermasters'
stores and cannon in the hands of the British. Washington now retreats
through the Jerseys, the British hard after. As they retreat, Paine
writes at night on a drum-head. In nineteen days, "often in sight and
within cannon-shot of each other, the rear of the one employed in
pulling down bridges, and the van of the other in building them up,"
Washington effected a march of ninety miles. The weather was severe, the
roads bad, and his army without blankets, tents, or provisions. In four
months his army dwindles from twenty thousand down to less than three
thousand. In the meantime, the Indians have been committing ravages on
the frontier, and in the heart of the country a great party demand
absolute submission. The Quakers oppose the war. There is no money to
pay soldiers, nor clothing to put on them; they are poorly armed, and
there is but little powder to put in the guns. Congress has only _voted_
for battalions, and there is an enemy "in the nation's bowels" that
votes can not resist. After Congress had voted for battalions, it took
its flight from Philadelphia to Baltimore, destroying public credit and
throwing upon Washington the responsibility of directing all things
relative to the operations of the war. The fate of the nation rests in
the balance; the beam is not equally poised, the nation is going down.
Washington is beyond the Delaware; the Hessians are at Trenton. He makes
a stand to look into the faces of but "twenty-four hundred men strong
enough to be his companions." And on the 20th of December, he tells a
voting and cowardly Congress: "Ten days more will put an end to this
army." These are "black days."
Where now are the hopes of America? Where are the committeemen who took
the Declaration of Independence into Congress? Franklin has gone to
France to work for the nation; Jefferson has refused to go with him, and
is at home in Virginia safe with his slaves. But where is John Adams,
who said that Jefferson had stolen his ideas from him to put into the
Declaration of Independence? Where is the chief representative from New
England, this "Colossus" of debate, this chief of the war committee?
_Where is John Adams_ in this darkest hour of his country's trial? He
has deserted her; he went home on the 13th of October after the first
reverse, and is "brave in his home by the sea," but will not come back
till four months are past, and Washington makes himself famous. The poor
dupe to his passions. Lee he loved, Washington he hated; a patriot this,
a traitor that. But where is the man who has on hand the _business of a
world_? We shall see. In this midnight of the revolution he has been
writing something. He has been in the army as a soldier, but has found
time to write. It is his first crisis, and it runs thus:
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and
the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service
of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and
thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily
conquered, yet we have this consolation left with us, that the
harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph." He produces
one of his most masterly pieces. He appeals to Heaven, and prays
for some Jersey maid, like Joan of Arc, to spirit up her
countrymen. He deals the king and Lord Howe heavy blows, deftly
laid on; and of the tory, he says: "Good God! what is he? Every
tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is
the foundation of toryism." Having reviewed the enemies of the
country he then "turns with the warm ardor of a friend to those
who have nobly stood and are determined to stand the matter out."
... "Let them call me rebel and welcome," says he, "I feel no
concern from it; but I should suffer the miseries of devils were I
to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose
character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless,
brutish man." In this he also pays a tribute to Washington, in
which he says: "God has given him a mind that can flourish upon
care." "The heart that feels not now is dead, the blood of his
children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back now." "I love
the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength by
distress and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little
minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm will pursue his
principle unto death." "By perseverance and fortitude we have the
prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad
choice of a variety of evils--a ravaged country, a depopulated
city, habitations without safety, and slavery without hope; our
homes turned into barracks and bawdy houses for Hessians, and a
future race to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look
on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one
thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it
unlamented."
This little pamphlet was dated Dec. 23, 1776. It was read at the head of
the regiments which made up the small remnant of Washington's army. On
Christmas night, Washington recrosses the Delaware, and strikes the
Hessians at Trenton the next morning. His horse is shot under him, but
he wins his _first battle_ and takes nearly a thousand prisoners, eight
cannon, and twelve hundred small arms. A few days afterward, Washington
struck the British at Princeton, who lost in killed and wounded two
hundred, and of prisoners the Americans took two hundred and thirty.
Many of Washington's best soldiers being now quite barefoot and badly
clad, and the winter weather severe, he closed the first campaign made
glorious for freedom by the pen of that man who had undertaken the
"_business of a world_."
But in the fall and winter before this his pen was not idle. The new
Constitution of Pennsylvania had distracted the State, and Paine tries
to bring order out of chaos. He is not unmindful of the Quakers, who
will not obey the teachings of their religion and remain neutral, and it
is a severe chastisement he gives them, for he talks to them as one
having authority.
Five weeks after the first campaign was ended John Adams came back to
Congress, not willing to be called "a sunshine patriot" in his home by
the sea. But it was not cowardice which made this chief of the war
committee desert his post in the most trying months of his country--it
was downright meanness of the temper. I mention him again here because
in April this year, 1777, he makes a motion that Thomas Paine be made
secretary to the committee on foreign affairs. Mr. Paine went on duty.
This was, doubtless, brought about by Benjamin Franklin, who is now in
France to secure the favors of the government, and as secrecy is the
success of diplomacy, Franklin wants Paine to receive his dispatches,
for in him he can trust. It was while in this office, as detective, that
he was made acquainted with the misconduct of Silas Deane. The stores
which Mr. Deane obtained from France were a gift to this country, but he
afterward brought in a demand for them, fraudulently pretending that he
had purchased them. This was in December, 1778. On the 29th of this
month Mr. Paine began a series of letters in the _Pennsylvania Packet_
entitled, "Common Sense to the Public on Mr. Deane's Affairs." He did
this to protect the Government, and took the responsibility upon himself
to save other parties. He began by saying of Mr. Deane, "as he rose like
a rocket he would fall like a stick." Three letters had made their
appearance when Mr. Paine was commanded to appear before Congress. The
President inquired of him, "Did you write this piece?" "I am the author
of that piece," responded Paine. "And this? and this?" "I am." "You may
retire." The Congress tried to dismiss him. It was a tie vote. The next
day, the 8th of January, 1779, Mr. Paine wrote to Congress as follows:
"As I can not consistently with my character as a freeman, submit to be
censured unheard, therefore to preserve that character and maintain that
right, I think it my duty to resign the office of secretary of the
committee for foreign affairs, and I do hereby resign the same."
He now opens up on Silas Deane a terrible battery of invective, and
exposed the fraud so completely, that Congress became ashamed of
supporting him, and Mr. Deane absconded to France, and afterward died in
England, it is said, of remorse, after taking poison. But Mr. Paine
became the "_victim of his integrity_," to save the money of the
government, which the soldiers were sorely in need of, and to bravely
push forward the "_business of a world_."
But, during this time, he has also written Nos. II, III, and IV of _The
Crisis_. No. II is to Lord Howe, dated January 13, 1777. This is one of
his finest pieces of satire, which is also filled with sentiments of
patriotism, courage, and hope. These periodical productions are among
his best efforts, and they were continued till the war ended. There are
sixteen in all. They were written to produce patriotism in the hearts of
the people. No. VIII, I think, is one of the finest productions I ever
read. It is addressed to the people of England, and is the sad wailing
of Junius.
In December of 1778, he puts forth the proposition to apply steam to
navigation--the first thought of the kind in America, which came in
advance of the fact about eight years, and in this America was the first
in the world.
Mr. Paine offers, at this time, to be one of a party of four or five to
set fire to the British fleet in the Delaware. But the three men like
him can not be found.
In 1779 he is appointed clerk of the Pennsylvania Assembly.
In 1780 he is dissuaded and prevented from going to England to get out,
in secret, a publication to stir up revolution there. The fates will not
permit him to try Junius over again. It is as well.
But the spring of this year was marked with an accumulation of
misfortunes to our army. The defense of Charleston had failed, and,
besides this, there was no money to pay the soldiers. A general gloom
rested on the whole country, patriotism was at its ebb, and petitions
were abundant to exempt the people from paying taxes. Government had
neither money nor credit, and things had come to a "_dead lock_."
Washington wrote to the Assembly of Pennsylvania. The doors were shut,
and it fell to Thomas Paine, the clerk, to read the letter.
"In this letter the naked truth of things was unfolded. Among
other informations, the general said that, notwithstanding his
confidence in the attachment of the army to the cause of the
country, the distresses of it, from the want of every necessary
which men could be destitute of, had arisen to such a pitch that
the appearances of mutiny and discontent were so strongly marked
on the countenances of the army, that he dreaded the event of
every hour."
After the letter was read, a despairing silence pervaded the hall.
Nobody spoke for a considerable time. At last a member of much fortitude
arose and said: "If the account in that letter is a true state of
things, and we are in the situation there represented, it appears to me
in vain to contend the matter any longer. We may as well give up the
matter first as last." Another man arose and said: "Well, well, don't
let the house despair; if things are not so well as we wish, we must
endeavor to make them better," and then moved an adjournment.
What shall now be done? Where is the god of battle, that he has deserted
America? When all others fail, both in council and in war, who shall be
able to cheer the heart and lift up the head of the nation? We shall
see. Thomas Paine draws his salary; he writes a stirring appeal for a
private subscription; heads it with five hundred dollars, "his mite, and
will increase it as far as the last ability will enable him to go." This
subscription is to be a _donation_ to carry on the war. In nine days the
subscription "amounts to four hundred pounds hard money, and one hundred
and one thousand three hundred and sixty pounds continental." The
subscribers now meet and form a bank, with a capital basis of three
hundred thousand pounds, real money, _for the purpose of supplying the
army_; and the country is once more saved by the man who has on his
hands "_the business of a world_."
It is now the university of Pennsylvania makes itself honorable and
famous by conferring on Thomas Paine the degree of Master of Arts. It is
in 1780 this is done, and on the FOURTH OF JULY.
But more money must be had. A continental dollar is worth about one
cent. "Hard money must be had," says Thomas Paine. But how shall it be
obtained? By an appeal to the king of France. Paine now sets about the
work. It is near the close of the year 1780. He takes up the pen and
undisguisedly states the true case of the nation, and requests that
France, either as a subsidy or a loan, will supply the United States
with a million sterling, and continue that supply annually during the
war. This letter was addressed to Count Vergennes, the French minister
of foreign affairs. Paine, as soon as he had written it, showed it to M.
Marbois, secretary to the French minister. His reply was: "A million
sent out of a nation exhausts it more than ten millions spent in it."
But nothing daunted he then took it to Ralph Isard, member of Congress
from South Carolina. Isard said: "We will try and do something about it
in Congress." Congress favored the letter, and it was thus made a
memorial. But who shall now take it to France, and in person represent
the situation and demand assistance, as set forth in this letter? Paine
had his eye on the man when he went to the member from South Carolina
with his letter. It was one of this state's noblest sons, Col. John
Laurens, aid to Washington; for Paine loved the Laurenses, both father
and son. Through Washington this son was named as agent. But he said:
"No, appoint Colonel Hamilton." Congress refused. Now young Laurens
states his case to Paine. He said he was acquainted with the military
difficulties, but not at all acquainted with political affairs, nor with
the resources of the country, "but if you will go with me, I will
accept." Of course Paine will go, and that, too, without pay, never
expecting a cent for it. Paine had planned his work well, he has got his
man, the bravest heart of the land, and we shall now see the boldest act
of diplomacy on record. For five weeks Paine had been about this work,
and about the first of February, 1781, they sail for France. As soon as
they reach Paris, Laurens promptly reports his arrival and business to
Vergennes. It is in vain. "The formalities of court and the
self-complaisancy of the minister, who would not be hurried, baffled him
for more than two months." But this young son of war has a spirit to
dare and a tutor to direct--who knows from long experience the stuff
kings are made of. He will not be trifled with by subordinates; he will
appeal directly to the king. He declares this to the minister, who
responds, "I am confounded with your audacity." This is more than
Franklin would dare, who is there at court. There comes "a public
lever." Louis XVI is there, and so is young Laurens, in uniform, his
sword at his side. Now act well thy part, a nation's life dwells in thy
words. He is presented to the king, who only expects the passing
formalities of an introduction. But Laurens speaks: "I am just from the
army of Washington. I know well its condition, it is fully set forth in
this memorial;" and then touching his sword, he adds, with animation,
"Unless speedy succor is sent to my country, the weapon I now wear at my
side as the ally of your majesty, might be drawn as the _subject_ of
Great Britain against you and France." The king was struck dumb; but
soon rallied himself and replied briefly, but favorably. He took the
memorial, the money was granted, and Paine accompanied Laurens home with
$2,500,000 in silver. The army is paid, fed, and clothed; Yorktown is
attacked upon the strength of it; Cornwallis surrenders, and the British
power is broken in this country forever, through those great causes put
in motion and faithfully sustained by the man who had on his hands "THE
BUSINESS OF A WORLD."
The great work of Thomas Paine is now nearly done in America, but mighty
things are yet to be done for the world. The next year he writes his
famous letter to the Abbe Raynal, and the Crisis, which guides the
nation to honor. A few years of rest, in which he writes his
Dissertation on Government, and other pieces; is elected a member of the
Philosophical Society, receives the hospitalities of Washington, and
three thousand dollars from Congress for his ten years services in
America, and he sails for France where he sees the fires of revolution
beginning to kindle.
But he has taken care to provide wisdom for his country before he quits
her shores. His far-reaching eye sees that a Federal Constitution will
have to be formed for the states, and in 1786 he is careful to
incorporate into his Dissertation on Government a _Declaration of
Rights_. In this Declaration of Rights lies the foundation of the
republic, and although not prefixed to the Federal Constitution at the
time it was formed and adopted, a complete synopsis of it was afterward
added as the ten first amendments thereto. Franklin has also come home
to labor awhile, now more than eighty years old; and being chosen a
delegate to the Federal Convention, Mr. Paine sailed for France the 16th
of April, 1787, just a month before it convened. He has finished his
work in America. This work he did faithfully and well. He is now fifty
years old, and there are ten years of revolutionary work, and twenty-two
of life before him yet.
He took with him to Paris the model of an _iron bridge_. He submits it
to the Academy of Sciences. It is pronounced a success, if theory can be
sustained by mathematical demonstration. He proposes an iron arch with a
span of four hundred and eighty feet. But theory must be tested, and the
next year he builds his bridge in an open field near Paddington, in
England. Experiment said it was a success, but he got into gaol for debt
on account of it. The bridge now spans the river Wear, at Sunderland.
This iron arch bridge was the first in the world. The principles are
now seen in thousands of bridges in Europe and America; and if they
could speak, each one would say: "I was born from the brain of Thomas
Paine."
Two American merchants assist him to pay his debts, and he gets out of
an English gaol in time to go over to France to witness the taking of
the Bastile, on the 14th of July, 1789. That "high altar and castle of
despotism" fell at the bidding of those republican principles which he
had dedicated his life to teach and maintain. It was a most fitting and
grand event when Lafayette gave to Thomas Paine the key to the Bastile
to present to Washington. It is now the property of this nation.
Mr. Burke the next year writes his "Reflections" on the French
Revolution, and Mr. Paine returns in November, 1790, to answer the
publication. In March, the first part of "The Rights of Man" appeared
for this purpose. It was dedicated to Washington. In another year the
second part appeared, dedicated to Lafayette. A hundred thousand copies
of this work went into the hands of the people. It was translated into
all the European languages, and was read by the poor and the rich, the
high and the low; it became the companion alike of the vassal and his
lord. In this he says: "The peer is exalted into the man. Titles are but
nicknames, and every nickname is a title. The thing is perfectly
harmless in itself, but it marks a sort of foppery in the human
character which degrades it. It talks about its fine ribbon like a girl,
and shows its garter like a child. A certain writer of antiquity says,
'When I was a child I thought as a child, but when I became a man I put
away childish things.' ... The insignificance of a senseless word like
duke, count, or earl, has ceased to please, and as they outgrew the
rickets, have despised the rattle. The genuine mind of man, thirsting
for its native home society, contemns the gewgaws that separate him from
it. Titles are like circles drawn by the magician's wand to contract the
sphere of man's felicity. He lives immured within the bastile of a word,
and surveys at a distance the envied life of man." Aristocracy "is a law
against every law of nature, and nature herself calls for its
destruction. Establish family justice and aristocracy falls. By the
aristocratical law of primogenitureship, in a family of six children
five are exposed. Aristocracy has never but one child. The rest are
begotten to be devoured. They are thrown to the cannibal for prey, and
the natural parent prepares the unnatural repast." ... "By nature they
are children, and by marriage they are heirs, but by aristocracy they
are bastards and orphans."
"In taking up this subject," he says, "I seek no recompense; I fear no
consequences. Fortified with that proud integrity, that disdain to
triumph or to yield, I will advocate the rights of man." ... "Knowing my
own heart, and feeling myself, as I now do, superior to all the skirmish
of party, the inveteracy of interested or mistaken opponents, I answer
not to falsehood or abuse." ... "Independence is my happiness, and I view
things as they are, without regard to place or person. My country is the
world, and my religion is to do good."
Mr. Paine is now doing openly and boldly the work which Junius tried to
do with less success. The same pen has now twenty years more experience;
it has added wisdom, but lost a trifle of its vivacity; yet it has lost
none of its terrible satire. Never did Junius use secretly such severe
language toward the king as Mr. Paine now openly writes. Of the crown,
he says: "It signifies a nominal office of a million a year, the
business of which consists in receiving the money. Whether the person be
wise or foolish, sane or insane, a native or a foreigner, matters not.
The hazard to which this office is exposed in all countries, is not from
any thing that can happen to the man, but from what may happen to the
nation; the danger of its coming to its senses.... When we speak of the
Crown now it means nothing; it signifies neither a judge nor a general;
besides which it is the laws that govern, and not the man."
"It is time that nations should be rational, and not governed like
animals, for the pleasure of their riders. To read the history of kings,
a man would be almost inclined to suppose that government consisted in
stag hunting, and that every nation paid a million a year to the
huntsman. Man ought to have pride or shame enough to blush at being thus
imposed upon, and when he feels his proper character he will.... It has
cost England almost seventy millions sterling to maintain a family
imported from abroad, of very inferior capacity to thousands in the
nation. No wonder that jails are crowded, and taxes and poor-rates
increased. Under such systems nothing is to be looked for but what has
already happened; and, as to reformation, whenever it comes, it must be
from the nation, and not from the government."
In the above how one is reminded of Junius, when he says: "The original
fault is in the government," and "there are many things which we ought
to affirm can not be done by king, lords, and commons." "The ruin or
prosperity of a state depends on the administration of its government."
"Behold a nation overwhelmed with debt, her revenues wasted, her trade
declining." That "a reasonable man can expect no remedy but poison, no
relief but death." "And that if an honest man were permitted to approach
a king, it would be matter of curious speculation how he would be
received," if the king himself had "spirit enough to bid him speak
freely, and understanding enough to listen to him with attention."
For the publication of this work in England many men were fined and
imprisoned. Mr. Paine himself was tried and convicted, but having been
elected a representative to the National Assembly of France, by the
Department of Calais, he left England in September, 1792, and being
afterward outlawed, never set foot on her soil again. Had it not been
for this election to the National Assembly, he would have remained to
contest in an English court the principles he had proclaimed. Twenty
minutes after he left her shores forever, an order arrived at Dover,
from which place he sailed, for his detention, but it was too late;
there is yet a sublime deed to be done.
At Calais, France embraced him, and a daughter of the New Republic
placed in his hat the national cockade. Mr. Paine is now entering the
dark days of his life. With what fortitude and manliness he shall pass
through them we shall see. He takes his seat in the National Assembly.
In this he addresses the people of France, and says; "I come not to
enjoy repose. I commence my citizenship in the stormy hour of
difficulties. Convinced that the cause of France is THE CAUSE OF ALL
MANKIND, and that liberty can not be purchased by a wish, I gladly share
with you the dangers and honors necessary to success.... Let us now look
calmly and confidently forward, and success is certain. It is no longer
the paltry cause of kings, or of this or that individual, that calls
France and her armies into action. It is the great cause of ALL. It is
the establishment of a new era that shall blot despotism from the earth,
and fix, on the lasting principles of peace and citizenship the great
REPUBLIC OF MAN."
France is declared a republic, and Mr. Paine is one of nine men to draft
a new constitution. This work is done. In the meantime, charges are
preferred against the king, and Louis XVI is brought to trial. Mr. Paine
voted for the trial. The king is found guilty, and condemned to die. But
he has now a friend in Thomas Paine. He speaks against the death
penalty, and says:
"CITIZEN PRESIDENT: My hatred and abhorrence of monarchy are
sufficiently known; they originate in principles of reason and
conviction, nor, except with life, can they ever be extirpated;
but my compassion for the unfortunate, whether friend or enemy, is
equally lively and sincere." He then reviews the causes which
brought him to trial, and pictures the deplorable condition he is
in--condemns the constituent assembly, rather than the
unfortunate prisoner, and then asks: "What shall be done with this
man?" He has now taken his own life in his hands, when he proffers
to the King of France an asylum in America. Besides, he has a duty
to perform for the United States, which now he offers his own life
to fulfill. He has not forgotten the great feat of young Laurens,
when he touched his sword in presence of this same king, demanding
_that_ aid which made his country free and independent, and which
was granted. He therefore says: "It is to France alone, I know,
that the United States of America owe that support which enabled
them to shake off the unjust and tyrannical yoke of Britain. The
ardor and zeal which she displayed to provide men and money, were
the natural consequence of a thirst for liberty. But as the nation
at that time, restrained by the shackles of her own government,
could only act by means of a monarchical organ, this organ,
whatever in other respects the object might be, certainly
performed a good, a great action. Let, then, these United States
be the safeguard and asylum of Louis Capet."
Marat cries out: "Paine is a Quaker," and the benevolence of this good
man is whelmed over by the fierce and bloody sentiment of revenge. This
is one of the sublime deeds which give us faith in man, but which appear
at such wide intervals that they mark eras in the world's history. I
know of but one other which rises to such touching sublimity--it is
Socrates, at the head of the Athenian Senate, refusing to put the vote
demanded by the laws, religion, and united voice of his country, which
would condemn to death the admirals who were unable to bury the dead
that had been slain in battle. Both offered their lives that others
might live, rather than be themselves unjust.
Mr. Paine, by this effort to save the king's life, lost his influence in
the assembly, and he became afterward a silent member, and, in the minds
of many, set apart to die. Foreigners are now expelled from the
convention, and an order having passed that all persons born in England,
and residing in France, should be imprisoned, he was, by order of
Robespierre, arrested, and thrown into the Luxembourg. Of his narrow
escapes, Mr. Paine says:
"I was one of the nine members that composed the first committee
of constitution. Six of them have been destroyed. Syeyes and
myself have survived--he by bending with the times, and I by not
bending. The other survivor joined Robespierre, and signed with
him the warrant of my arrestation. After the fall of Robespierre,
he was seized and imprisoned, in his turn, and sentenced to
transportation. He has since apologized to me for having signed
the warrant, by saying he felt himself in danger, and was obliged
to do it.
"Herault Sechelles, an acquaintance of Mr. Jefferson, and a good
patriot, was my _suppliant_ as member of the committee of
constitution--that is, he was to supply my place, if I had not
accepted or had resigned, being next in number of votes to me. He
was imprisoned in the Luxembourg with me, was taken to the
tribunal and the guillotine, and I, his principal, was left.
"There were but two foreigners in the convention--Anacharsis
Cloots and myself. We were both put out of the convention by the
same vote, arrested by the same order, and carried to prison
together the same night. He was taken to the guillotine, and I
was again left. Joel Barlow was with us when we went to prison.
"Joseph Lebon, one of the vilest characters that ever existed, and
who made the streets of Arras run with blood, was my suppliant as
member of the convention for the department of the Pays de Calais.
When I was put out of the convention, he came and took my place;
when I was liberated from prison, and voted again into the
convention, he was sent into the same prison, and took my place
there; and he went to the guillotine instead of me. He supplied my
place all the way through. One hundred and sixty-eight persons
were taken out of the Luxembourg in one night, and one hundred and
sixty of them guillotined the next day, of which I know I was to
have been one; and the manner I escaped that fate is curious, and
has all the appearance of accident. When persons by scores and
hundreds were to be taken out of prison for the guillotine, it was
always done in the night, and those who performed that office had
a private mark, or signal, by which they knew what rooms to go to,
and what number to take. We were four, and the door of our room
was marked, unobserved by us, with that number, in chalk; but it
happened, if happening is a proper word, that the mark was put on
when the door was open and flat against the wall, and thereby came
on the inside when we shut it at night, and the destroying angel
passed by it. A few days after this Robespierre fell, and the
American embassador arrived and reclaimed me, and invited me to
his house.
"During the whole of my imprisonment, prior to the fall of
Robespierre, there was no time when I could think my life worth
twenty-four hours, and my mind was made up to meet its fate. The
Americans in Paris went in a body to the convention to reclaim me,
but without success. There was no party among them with respect to
me. My only hope then rested on the government of America, that it
would remember me. But the icy heart of ingratitude, in whatever
man it may be placed, has neither feeling nor sense of honor. The
letter of Mr. Jefferson has served to wipe away the reproach, and
has done justice to the mass of the people of America.
"About two months before this event, I was seized with a fever
that, in its progress, had every symptom of becoming mortal.... I
have some reason to believe, because I can not discover any other
cause, that this illness preserved me in existence."
In these hours of death, and when he expects to be beheaded at any
moment, he is writing his AGE OF REASON. The first part he completed
just before going to prison; the second part he studies upon, and partly
writes, while in prison, and publishes it a few months after his
release.
This work was planned years before it appeared, and its completion was
deferred till near the close of his life, that the purity of his motives
might not be impeached. It was written at that time, too, before he had
intended it, because he expected soon to be put to death, and lest, in
"the general shipwreck of superstition, of false systems of government,
and false theology, the people lose sight of morality, of humanity, and
of the theology that is true." It was written to combat superstition,
fanaticism, and atheism on the one hand, and to defend religion,
morality, and deism on the other. It is the good and religious work of
a good and religious man. The work it was designed to accomplish is not
yet done, but it is well begun. As the world grows wiser it will be
valued the more highly, and the more it is read the better will people
become.
Had Mr. Paine died at this time, his life's work would have been
fulfilled, and the tranquillity of his life would not have been
disturbed by the curses of the whole order of the priesthood. But there
are fourteen years of life before him yet, in which he is maligned,
vilified, slandered, and publicly and privately insulted.
I will briefly sum them up. Seven of these years he spends in France. He
writes his essays "On the English System of Finance," "Agrarian
Justice," and the "Letter to General Washington;" also, one "To the
People and Armies of France." It seems he became attached to Napoleon,
for the project of the gun-boat invasion of England is started, and
should it succeed, Mr. Paine is to give England a more liberal
government. In 1802, he came to America, and the folly of gun-boats also
enters into Jefferson's administration. These seven years of life in
America are years of trouble and grief. Jefferson, the great Democratic
partisan, secures his services to write for his party; but he had never
been a partisan, he had stood on higher ground, he had labored for all
mankind, and the work, which ill became him, served only to aggravate
his own life. We can see a mental change coming over the old man; the
reason is yet strong, but the temper is irritable; he grows peevish and
broods over his wrongs. "I ought not to have an enemy in America," he
said. But the generation of people he now lived among, near the close
of his life, were not yet born "in the times that tried men's souls,"
and they knew him not. He was the friend of Jefferson, and Jefferson had
bitter enemies, who said "they both ought to dangle from the same
gallows."
He had been paid but little for his revolutionary services, and he now
felt the ingratitude of the old Congress, which had treated him badly,
and the new one, which could not be bothered with him. Thus his miseries
multiply. "After so many years of service, my heart grows cold toward
America," he writes, a year before his death, to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives. Jefferson ought to have kept the old man aloof
from politics, instead of thrusting him into his party broils, and
bringing down on his head the whole host of his own personal enemies.
Paine had enemies enough of his own without these. But great ideas and
generous affections, it seems, Jefferson never had. Now, in his old age,
the great apostle of liberty is deserted by many he had labored to
befriend, and, though he does not meet death at the hands of his
enemies, they have venom enough in their hearts to slay him.
It is sad to think that his last hours were embittered for the want of a
friend. Washington had long before forgotten him while a prisoner in the
Luxembourg. Samuel Adams had condemned him. John Adams has it in his
heart to blast his memory, and four years after he is dead writes to
Jefferson, "Joel Barlow was about to record Tom Paine as the great
author of the American Revolution. If he was, I desire that my name may
be blotted out forever from its record." This came from the man who
twice deserted his post in the trying hour of his country; once for four
months when at the head of the war committee, and once for seven months
when president of the nation. It came from the man who said: Jefferson
had stolen his ideas from him to put into the Declaration of
Independence. "Blotted out," No! John Adams, your name will live forever
on the records of your country. You were sometimes a great man. But by
the side of Thomas Paine, on the records of your country, you stand
thus:
_History._
John Adams, Member of Congress, the Colossus of
debate, signer of the Declaration of Independence,
famous in the world, chief of the war committee,
on whom great trusts were imposed, in whom great
faith was had, in the first trying crisis of the
new nation DESERTED HER. _Brave in his home by the
sea._
Thomas Paine, the Junius of England, author of
Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence,
whose fame is unknown, on whom no trust was
imposed by the public, undertakes the business of
a world; enlists in the army of Washington, and in
the first trying crisis of the new nation, by the
inspiration of his pen, SAVED HER. _Bravest when
stout hearts fail._
Franklin, the firm friend, has been dead these nineteen years, and many
more of the old first friends had gone the same way. His mind now
reverts to his home in England, and the religion of his father haunts
his affections. He asks to be buried in the Quaker burying-ground, and
is refused, lest this act of decency should offend the sanctified
followers of Fox. It is as well. The old man's will records, that if
this be not granted him on account of his father's religion, he was to
be buried on his own farm at New Rochelle. On the 8th of June, 1809, he
took his final leave of the world. "I have lived," said he, "an honest
and useful life to mankind; my time has been spent in doing good; and I
die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my
Creator--God."
Thus the great REVOLUTIONIST passed away. Like all great men, he lived a
virtuous, upright life. He had a noble object in view, and labored
manfully to accomplish it. But having done his work well, his enemies
have added to his fame by trying to undo what time has approved, and by
reviling him when nature has applauded.
CONCLUSION.
Thomas Paine is now placed right before the world. He was peculiarly a
favored child of nature. The great strokes of his character are these: A
spirit to resent an injury which made him sometimes revengeful and
vindictive. Yet a friend in his defense could call upon him for his
life, and it would be granted. Too proud to be vain, he rose above the
common level in personal honor, and demanded that the character of a
nation should be without spot. Benevolent beyond his means, he lived
like a miser, that he might have wherewith to bestow upon the needy,
whether man, woman, child, or country.
Secretive beyond estimate, he lived a perfect spy upon the world, and
obtained from friend and foe, from society and government, what they
wished to conceal, and stored away facts which he locked up in his own
mind to be used if needed, or everlastingly kept. He was too hopeful to
estimate the future correctly, and had too much faith in man to judge
correctly of his actions. Yet character he scarcely ever misjudged. As
for courage, he dared to do any thing that was right. He dared to think
like a philosopher, and to act like a man. Intellectually he was a
prodigy; and as for _genius_, under which I combine the constructive,
analytic and imaginative faculties the world has never seen his equal.
He was, in short, an artist, inventor, scholar, poet, philosopher, enemy
and friend. These mental characteristics were so combined and regulated
by his will, that nature could never repeat what she produced in Thomas
Paine.
I have faithfully followed the lines of nature in this criticism, and
have endeavored to produce a work which the student and statesman can
study with profit; which the lawyer may consider as an argument; which
will arrest the attention of the historian, and present new themes to
the mind of the philosopher; one which will open up a new method for the
critic, and in all these a work which the scholar will not despise. This
I say without vanity. Mine indeed are humble labors; and my work,
whatever it is, has not been laborious and artful, but easy and natural.
I have not written this to make proselytes to his religion, but to do a
much injured man a good service. Yet, as hero-worship is a part of man's
nature, it may not be improbable that one age will extol what a
previous one reviled, and a temple be erected to the religion of a man
who was once thought to be a devil. This reminds me of a story which
long ago I remember of reading in a volume of the Letters of the Turkish
Spy; and as I quote from memory I will give only the substance:
Two hundred years ago, somewhere in Spain, in front of a Christian house
of worship, stood a statue. This was the black image of a man sitting on
an ass. As each pious devotee passed in to worship, or came out
therefrom, he spat upon the statue. But a Mussulman embassador coming
from the king of Morocco, observing these rites, which he was told had
been performed for centuries, asked the king why they treated this image
with such insult. He was told it was the image of Mahomet. The follower
of Mahomet, being better informed, replied: This can not be, for Mahomet
rode always on camels, and it was Jesus Christ who, it is recorded, rode
on an ass. This fact was soon confirmed by the priests, and thereupon
the people took to kissing and worshiping what they had before
insultingly spat upon, and afterward erected a temple where it stood in
honor of it.
APPENDIX.
Those who have never examined the claims advanced in favor of Philip
Francis, may be benefited by this Appendix. I think it will herein be
made out, that his case has been founded on spurious and unauthenticated
records. The case may be stated as follows:
On March 3, 1772, there was published, under the supervision of Junius,
a _genuine_ edition of the Letters. In his Preface, he states: "The
encouragement given to a _multitude_ of _spurious_ mangled publications
of the Letters of Junius persuades me that a complete edition, corrected
and improved by the author, will be favorably received.... This edition
contains _all_ the letters of Junius, Philo Junius," etc.
Forty years after this edition was published, when Mr. H. S. Woodfall,
the publisher, was dead, his son issued a new edition, in which he
collected from the files of the Advertiser what he supposed to be other
letters of Junius, and classed them as Miscellaneous Letters. This new
edition, which is called Woodfall's, was first published in 1812. Upon
the heel of this edition, John Taylor published his "Junius Identified,"
supporting his claims in favor of Francis nearly or quite altogether on
the Miscellaneous Letters. Till then the claims of Francis were never
brought forward. I now proceed to show that these Miscellaneous Letters
are not all genuine.
1. They show in many instances internal evidence of fraud. Private Note
No. 61 is as follows:
"SUNDAY, May 3, 1772.
"I am in no manner of hurry about the books. I hope the sale has
answered. I think it will always be a saleable book. The inclosed
is fact, and I wish it could be printed to-morrow. It is not worth
announcing. The proceedings of this wretch are unaccountable.
There must be some mystery in it, which I hope will soon be
discovered, to his confusion. Next to the Duke of Grafton, I
verily believe that the blackest heart in the kingdom belongs to
Lord Barrington."
The above note accompanied a letter signed _Scotus_, published in the
Advertiser, May 4, 1772. Now, mark! The private note which accompanied
this letter of _Scotus_ says: "_This is fact._" And the letter of
_Scotus_ opens as follows: "To Lord Barrington: My lord, _I am a
Scotchman_," etc. He then goes on, without dignity or grace, to talk
bluntly to Lord Barrington, and with an egotistical defense of the
Scotch. He says: "There is courage at least in _our_ composition." "For
the future, my lord, be more sparing of your reflections on the Scotch."
This letter and the note accompanying it are yet in existence in the
original, and are called genuine. Now, that they are forgeries is quite
evident from the whole spirit of Junius in regard to the Scotch. In
Letter 44, he says of Mr. Wedderburne: "I speak tenderly of this
gentleman, for when treachery is in question, I think we should make
allowances for a Scotchman." He speaks of the Scotch "cunning,"
"treachery," and "fawning sycophancy," of "the characteristic prudence,
the selfish nationality, the indefatigable smile, the persevering
assiduity, the everlasting profession of a discreet and moderate
resentment." This last quotation may be found in the Preface, and was
written about four months prior to the publication of the letter of
_Scotus_. Now, is the positive evidence of the _genuine_ Letters to be
set aside by this fugitive note and letter of _Scotus_? Reason and
Common Sense say not. Here then one of the Miscellaneous Letters, and
one of the private letters to Woodfall are proven to be forgeries. How
many more may have to go the same way? Even the nationality of _Francis_
is against this one of _Scotus_, for he was an Irishman.
It may be well to remark, in passing, that as the manuscript of this
letter of _Scotus_ is still in existence, the claims of Francis founded
on handwriting will have to go the same way, for proof on genuine
handwriting is _doubtful_, but proof on disguised handwriting is
_worthless_. All that can be proven from handwriting is, Francis _may_
have been the author of this forged letter of _Scotus_, and other
letters of _Veteran_, which were written solely from personal spite
toward Lord Barrington.
2. I would call attention to another manifest forgery of a private note
and letter. The note is No. 8, vol. i, p. 198, and the letter is No. 58,
vol. iii, p. 218, Woodfall's edition. The letter is one of low wit, and
somewhat vulgar in its construction, and is an answer to another signed
_Junia_, probably written by Mr. Caleb Whiteford. The note says: "The
last letter you printed was idle and improper, and, I assure you,
printed against my own opinion. _The truth is, there are people about me
whom I would wish not to contradict, and who had rather see Junius in
the papers ever so improperly than not at all._" The question now is:
Did those people, for whose benefit he wrote the letter, keep the
_secret_ which has baffled the world?--for these people must have known
him to be Junius. And did Junius write falsely, when he said in his
Dedication more than two years afterward: "I am the sole depository of
my own secret, and it shall perish with me?" Did Junius write falsely
when he said: "This edition contains _all_ the letters of Junius?" for
this one which he cast out, and is in the Miscellaneous collection, was
signed _Junius_. Besides, the handwriting is different from the genuine
notes. Compare No. 8, spurious, with No. 3, genuine, vol. i, Woodfall's
edition.
Here is clear evidence of forgery in two cases, not from handwriting be
it remembered, but from internal evidence. May there not be many more
such cases? Moreover, from the style and spirit of all the miscellaneous
letters written _after_ the one signed _Atticus_, and printed November
14, 1768, there is no evidence whatever of the hand or head of Junius.
Prior to this time Junius had been writing to get his hand in, and his
contributions appeared over the signatures of _Atticus_, _Lucius_, _C_,
and a few others, but all prior to the above date. Junius _proper_ began
with his famous Letter of January 21, 1769, and closed in just three
years to a day.
I am now prepared to state: In the comparison of Thomas Paine with
Junius I did not suffer myself in a single instance to go outside of the
_genuine_ edition; because I plainly saw, after a long and critical
study of the Letters, that there was no safe footing outside of it.
Whatever, therefore, has been established in style, character,
occupation, rank, opinion, etc., in favor of Paine, has at least this
merit: _its foundation is good_. I propose now to show that this can not
be said in favor of Francis.
I have given on pages 190 and 191 the summing up of the main argument of
John Taylor in favor of Francis, by Mr. Macaulay. Macaulay writes only
as a reviewer of Taylor, not an original investigator; and a reviewer,
too, like many at this day, without searching at the fountain head for
the facts in the case. Let us now look at the five points Mr. Taylor
makes:
"First, that he was acquainted with the technical forms of the Secretary
of State's office." Under this Taylor begins by observing: "One method
of discovering the rank and _station_ of Junius is to see with whose
names he is most familiar." He then says: "The only persons to whom
Junius applies epithets of familiarity are Welbore Ellis, Esq., Lord
Barrington, Messrs. Rigby, Whateley, Bradshaw, and Chamier." Taylor then
proves Junius to have been familiar with Whateley by a long quotation
from miscellaneous letters, one without a signature, and one signed
_Henricus_. See Taylor's Junius Identified, page 54. In this connection
comes a very important disclosure in regard to Mr. _Grenville_. I will
quote Taylor, page 54: "Comparing these indications of personal
acquaintance with the opportunities afforded Sir P. Francis, we find
that Mr. George Grenville was one of the secretaries of state at the
time Sir Philip Francis held that place in the Secretary of State's
office, which had been given him by Lord Holland, and Mr. Whateley was
then Mr. Grenville's private secretary. This contiguity of station would
afford Sir Philip Francis frequent opportunities of acquiring all that
_intimate_ and _ocular_ knowledge of Mr. Whateley which is evinced by
Junius." That is, which is evinced by Junius in the letter signed
"_Henricus_," and the one _without_ signature, and which are not in the
genuine edition. But Mr. Taylor proves too much; for then Junius, if he
were Sir Philip Francis, would also have been acquainted with Grenville,
as Francis doubtless was, and there is nothing to hinder Grenville from
becoming acquainted with Francis, where there is such "_intimacy_"
between Grenville's _private secretary_ and Francis, and where there is
such "_contiguity of station_." Let us now produce positive proof on the
other side from a _genuine_ letter. Letter 18 says: "It is not my design
to enter into a formal vindication of Mr. Grenville upon his own
principles. I have neither the honor of being _personally known to him_,
nor do I pretend to be completely master of the facts." But if Francis
was Junius, this statement could not be true.
While I am upon this subject of personal knowledge and acquaintance, let
me bring forward something against Francis. It is well known that he
attended school for about three years with Mr. Woodfall, and that a
friendship strong and intimate existed between them through life. Put
over against this, from private note to Woodfall, No. 17, the following:
"I doubt much whether I shall ever have the pleasure of knowing you; but
if things take the turn I expect, you shall know _me by my works_." The
italics are his own. Here is a positive statement that Junius did not
know Woodfall, and an implied one that Woodfall did not know Junius. If
Francis was Junius, here is confusion confounded; but if Paine was
Junius, it is as clear as day. But to proceed.
In regard to Bradshaw, Chamier, and Barrington, Taylor quotes from
_Domitian_, _Veteran_, _Q. in the Corner_, and _Arthur Tell Truth_, all
miscellaneous letters. He also quotes once from private note No. 52,
which, like the two others I have shown, is undoubtedly a forgery. This
note was dated January 25, 1772, and was written with the manifest
purpose of paving the way to those four low and scurrilous attacks on
Lord Barrington by _Veteran_. These he began on the 28th, three days
after the private note, and promised sixteen letters "already written,"
but only wrote four, when he exhausted himself. Nearly all the evidence
in favor of Francis is taken from these letters. Taylor establishes _not
a single fact_ under the first head from _Junius_, and I believe only
quotes him _once, and to prove nothing_. I now proceed with the next
count.
"Secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the business of the
War Office." In answer to this, I will quote Taylor, page 61, as
follows: "But in the letters at the end of the third volume [Letters of
_Veteran_, vol. iii, Woodfall's Junius] it seems as if he was almost
indifferent to discovery, he so clearly betrays his _personal
acquaintance_ with the proceedings of the Secretary of War." This he
founds solely on _Veteran_.
"Thirdly, that he, during the year 1770, attended debates in the House
of Lords, and took notes of the speeches, particularly of the speeches
of Lord Chatham." Taylor tries to establish this claim on the letter _Y.
Z._, which is in the Miscellaneous collection. But I insist, _Y. Z._
must be proven to be Junius before any inference can be drawn from it.
Taylor can not even prove that Francis wrote it. But he draws an
inference from the following in Philo Junius: "In regard to Lord Camden,
the truth is, that he inadvertently overshot himself, as appears plainly
by that unguarded mention of a tyranny of forty days, _which I myself
heard_." The argument is, Junius heard speeches in Parliament, and
therefore _might_ have been Francis, as speeches were not reported till
long after. As this extract is from authority which I indorse, I will
meet it by a passage from Thomas Paine's Crisis vii, showing that he
also heard debates in Parliament. Speaking of national honor, he says:
"I remember the late Admiral Saunders declaring in the House of Commons,
and that in the time of peace, 'that the city of Madrid laid in ashes
was not a sufficient atonement for the Spaniards taking off the rudder
of an English sloop of war.'"
"Fourthly, that he bitterly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to
the place of Deputy Secretary at War." This is founded entirely on the
letters of _Veteran_.
"Fifthly, that he was bound by some strong tie to the first Lord
Holland." This argument is founded on the _silence_ of Junius in regard
to Lord Holland, and one letter of _Anti-Fox_, which is in the
Miscellaneous collection.
These five points, then, of Taylor's argument are all founded on
unauthenticated letters, and yet Macaulay says: "If this argument does
not settle the question, there is an end of all reasoning on
circumstantial evidence." But, if the evidence of those miscellaneous
letters is to be taken as true, which were written nobody knows by whom,
and collected forty years after Junius ceased writing, and which had
been thrown out of the genuine edition by Junius himself, or had not yet
been written, by what rule are we to be guided in settling the question?
Let me present a difficulty at once. Suppose I am a Scotchman. I wish to
make out a case for some one of my countrymen, and I turn to the
Miscellaneous collection and find a letter signed _Scotus_. Ah! here is
a Scotchman, as the signature denotes. I immediately begin to read, and
to my happiness the first sentence is an unqualified affirmation: "My
lord, I am a Scotchman." This is positive, I affirm; and then how
delighted I am to find, in a private note, the assurance to Mr. Woodfall
that this letter "_is fact_." And, more than this, the original
manuscript is at this hour in existence. Now, all I have to do is to
show that this disguised hand resembles that of some cotemporary
Scotchman's, and Scotland has the honor. This shows how absolutely
worthless any argument is, founded on the Miscellaneous Letters. Query:
Did not the experts depend largely on the manuscript of this spurious
Scotch epistle to make out a case of identity in handwriting? As the
above five points which I have reviewed, form the head and body of
Taylor's argument, it would be trifling to attack the appendages. These
hints will guide the reader.
But the fact is, were the five points which Taylor enumerates and tries
to prove from miscellaneous letters established, still there would be no
case for Francis. But even _admitting there is_ a good case made out for
him on miscellaneous letters, _there is nothing incompatible_ with my
case in favor of Thomas Paine founded on the _genuine Letters_. This may
be made manifest by the following further observations:
There is no evidence of any weight brought forward to prove that Francis
was Junius, because it is _assumed_ that Junius wrote those
miscellaneous letters, and especially _Veteran's_ productions. But first
prove that Junius was _Veteran_. This can not be done, and it is an
important premise in the argument left out. It would be easier to prove
that Francis was _Veteran_; and this I do not dispute. It makes my case
far stronger to have a clear case made for Francis, founded on the
spurious and miscellaneous letters. But that Junius did not write the
letters which Taylor makes the foundation of his argument there is
abundance of internal evidence to prove. The evidence of forgery I have
already adduced. But could Francis have forged the hand of Junius? I
answer yes; and for the following reasons:
1. His acquaintance, friendship, intimacy, and peculiar political
views would give a ready access to Woodfall's office.
2. The handwriting of Junius could not be kept a secret for it
went to the compositors. Nor did Woodfall keep it from the public;
nor did he even keep the secrets of Junius as he ought to have
done, for it was from Woodfall himself that Garrick obtained the
fact that Junius would write no more, after he had compiled his
work.
3. After getting a specimen of the disguised hand of Junius,
Francis could easily forge it. As evidence of this I quote from
Taylor, p. 278, as follows: "It has been observed of him [Francis]
that he possessed so perfect a command of his pen that he could
write every kind of hand." Taylor acknowledges this extraordinary
power of Francis.
Now take with the above three facts the internal evidence of forgery,
both in the spirit and on the face of the letters, and we have a strong
case in favor of Francis forging the hand of Junius, but assuming the
name of _Veteran_.
But again, private notes may be forged as well as letters for
publication, which injures them as evidence. And who shall decide at
this late day on forgeries? I have herein adduced enough evidence to
throw great doubt on the Miscellaneous Letters, and if any thing can be
proven from internal evidence, which is acknowledged by all to be the
best in the world; then two letters and two private notes accompanying
them, I have shown in the language of Junius to be _spurious_. The truth
is, there is nothing absolutely safe outside of the _genuine_ edition,
for this alone has the plain and positive approval of Junius. Moreover,
it was compiled for the purpose of sifting the cheat from the pure
grain, and as Junius had assumed one other signature besides his own, he
thought it necessary to cast out other publications falsely attributed
to him, and unqualifiedly states in reference to Philo Junius, "The
fraud was innocent, and I always intended to explain it." Why was he
thus explicit if he had been writing continually over other signatures?
Besides the above, the letters of Junius are finished productions, which
took much time and care to write, and Junius could not therefore be the
author of all those miscellaneous letters attributed to him in
Woodfall's edition, for the time is too short to produce them. But it is
preposterous to assume that Francis could attend to his clerical duties,
and often take down speeches in Parliament, and at the same time write
all those letters, both genuine and miscellaneous.
Again in the _genuine_ Letters, there is perfect harmony from the first
to the last. There is the same sentiment, spirit, object and style,
throughout the whole, and not a single contradiction anywhere to be
found. This can not be said of the Miscellaneous Letters, as I have
already shown. I would particularly call attention to the language of
Junius when charged by Mr. Horne of writing under various signatures,
and that he was known. To this Junius responds: "I rely on the
consciousness of _my own integrity_, and defy him to fix any colorable
charge of inconsistency upon me." The whole _life_, as well as writings
of Thomas Paine, sustains this assertion. I have studied Paine and
Junius with this affirmation in view, and never have I found Paine to
express an opinion inconsistent with Junius. Sometimes there is a change
of opinion which he indicates or points out. For example, Junius
thought highly of the English army. Paine had reason to change his mind
in regard to it, and he says, he once thought the same and reasoned from
the same prejudices.
These facts are enough to open the eyes of the reader, and to show him
that Taylor's Junius Identified, is a literary fraud no doubt innocently
perpetrated. Taylor jumped at a conclusion, namely, that the
Miscellaneous Letters were the letters of Junius, and took them as
authority, without one thought of inquiry into their authenticity. But
his great work should have been, first to _prove_ the Miscellaneous
Letters _genuine_. After this he should have shown that Francis was a
Scotchman, who was chagrined at the abuse of the Scotch, and at the same
time was an Englishman who was intensely exasperated at the Scotch, and
that these two facts are not inconsistent with his being an Irishman.
In conclusion, I will submit the following letter of Francis in reply to
the editor of the Monthly Magazine, who had made inquiry of Sir Philip,
in regard to his being the author of the Letters of Junius:
JULY, 1813.
SIR--The great civility of your letter induces me to answer it,
which, with reference merely to its subject matter, I should have
declined. Whether you will assist in giving currency to a silly,
malignant falsehood, is a question for your own discretion. To me
it is a matter of perfect indifference.
I am sir, yours, etc.,
P. FRANCIS.
I think the word _silly_ in the above letter has a telling significance.
* * * * *
Transcriber's Notes:
1. General transcription clarifying notes:
A. The original printing of this book did not include a Table of
Contents, one has been added by the transcriber to aid reader
navigation. Major text breaks and page headers were used to
formulate the "Chapters".
B. Footnotes have been moved to Chapter ends and have been
assigned letters instead of symbols. Each footnote originally
appeared on the same page as its reference point.
C. In the chapter entitled "Letter--To the Printer of the Public
Advertiser" the footnotes section has been re-titled "DOCTORS
NOTES" to coordinate with the next chapter entitled "Comments on
Doctors Notes". The note references have been placed in brackets,
[1], [2], etc., instead of the parentheses in the original text.
E. In the original book passages of "Common Sense" and the
"Letters of Junius" were presented side by side. In this e-text
these comparisons have been made by differently indented paragraph
blocks. Additional quotes and emdashes have been added as needed.
2. Spelling corrections: (#) = times correctly spelled elsewhere in text.
Pg. 62 "interpid" to "intrepid" (an intrepid leader)
Pg. 206 "surmont" to "surmount" (1) (surmount local prejudices)
Pg. 208 "dependance" to "dependence" (6) (dependence on, Great Britain)
Pg. 253 "christian" to "Christian" (27) (between infidel and Christian)
Pg. 255 "repetiton" to "repetition" (3) (in the repetition of)
Pg. 328 "Whately" to "Whateley" (3) (of Mr. Whateley)
3. Printers corrections and notations on anomolies:
Pg. 112 "--Letter to." - has been retained as it appears in the text,
no name for the "to" was given.
Pg. 214 changed "Is" to "is" (to one point, is the power)
Pg. 219 removed duplicate word "of" (sum of individual happiness)
Pg. 228 Section: USURPATION, notations of Paragraph 10, 11, 12, Item
"b", sentence correctly ends with "," as item "c" is it's continuation
and Paragraph 15, Item "f" "to be" correctly ends without punctuation,
and continues in item "g" (to be "Tried").
Pg. 239 Section "First Period", Item 10. "...laws have given" ends
without punctuation but continues in Item 11 (Equally to all).
Pg. 254 Paragraph ends with a new sentence starting "And" with no
punctuation, which may be the lead in to the next paragraph beginning
with "First," and has been retained in this text.
Pg. 268 added word "Works," ("...on the table."--Works, vol. ix,)
Pg. 268 note *Works, vol. v, p. 466. appearing at the bottom of the
page had NO REFERENCE POINT, but has been retained in this text and
incorporated into the final paragraph of the page which appears to
have been the authors intent.
Pg. 310 added correct indentation to quotation: (It signifies a nominal
office)
4. Known or suspected archaic words used and retained in this text:
"banditti" (alt. of "bandit")
"belligerant" (Fr. Lat. belligerans, arch. of "belligerent")
"burthen" (arch. of "burden")
"cotemporary(ies)" (arch. of "contemporary")
"embassador" (arch. of "ambassador")
"eulogium" (ML. of "eulogy")
"gayety" (alt. of "gaiety")
"incontestible" (alt. for "incontestable")
"plentitude" (alt. for "plenitude")
"pretentions" (alt. for "pretensions")
"rythm" (arch. of "rhythm")
"vascillating" (alt. for "vacillating")
"wot" (1st and 3rd pers. sing., pr., ind. of "wit")
5. Word variations retained in this text:
"aspertion" (Let. of Junius) and "aspersion" (elsewhere)
"gun-boat" (1), "gun-boats" (1), and "gunboats" (1)
"Int." (1), "Introd." (1), and "Introduc." (1) (all abbreviations of
"Introduction")
"re-write" (1) and "rewrite" (1)
"viz.," and "viz" (W.E.D. ind. either is correct for "namely")
"Wedderburn" (1), "Wedderburn's" (2) and "Wedderburne" (3)
*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Junius Unmasked - or, Thomas Paine the author of the Letters of Junius and - the Declaration of Independence" ***
Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Keep it legal - Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government. The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications. ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.